W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2002

RE: D-AR003.2

From: Sedukhin, Igor <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>
Date: Fri, 31 May 2002 10:26:05 -0400
Message-ID: <849C1D32E4C7924F854D8A0356C72A9E04646510@usilms08.ca.com>
To: "Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>, Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

I guess <what,how> in the req. is mapping to <declarative,procedural>.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

-----Original Message-----
From: Damodaran, Suresh [mailto:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 7:58 PM
To: Sedukhin, Igor; Dave Hollander
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AR003.2

In 3.2, I also don't see how <abstract,concrete> maps 1-1 to <design,run-time>. It is unclear to me how <abstract, concrete> maps 1-1 to <declarative,

I can understand <description, realization> mapping 1-1 to both <design,run-time> and <declarative, procedural>. I prefer dropping the words "abstract" and "concrete" from 3.2, as well as the reference to "design/run-time"

Actually, the reqs in 3.3 to 3.6 match in substance reqs made for "predictable and stable evolution of architecture" which we will reconsider in "reliability" TF. If these are still under "D" category, reliability TF can take these.


Sterling Commerce, Inc.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com]
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 5:24 PM
To: Dave Hollander
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: D-AR003.2

Can someone explain to me why separation of declarative concepts from procedural concepts is bad for the architecture?

If I draw a component relationship diagram separately from a state transition diagram, that is good. It would be real nasty if I try to mix those together.

My take is that the requirement being discussed prevents us from doing the later. 

So I'm inclined to keep it, possibly dropping the second part which talks about design/run time.

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788

-----Original Message-----
From: Dave Hollander [mailto:dmh@contivo.com] 
Sent: Thursday, May 30, 2002 4:32 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: D-AR003.2

There are two separate issues with D-AR003.2.

a. Does this csf belong in the requirements document?

b. If so, is it correct and necessary to equate abstract/concrete descriptions and
	design/run time aspects.

My Opinions:
a. No. Extensibility and evolution are heavily dependent on the structure and design of the underling architecture. I believe the idea comes from the often 
discussed modeling practice of separation of abstract (what) from concrete (how). 
Unfortunately, there are often reasons to violate this principle and there is disagreement in the modeling community in where the line sits (for example, 
is the number of occurrences part of the how or what? )

Given that XML Schemas have both abstract and concrete constructs (at least by some definitions) I do not think we can fully support this CSF.

b. No, they are not the same.

Dave Hollander

is sufficiently extensible to allow for future evolution of technology and of business goals

D-AR003.1 separates the transport of data or means of access to Web Services from the Web Services themselves

D-AR003.2 description of Web Services be clearly separated into abstract descriptions ("what") from their concrete realizations ("how"), or put another way, separate design time aspects from run-time aspects

D-AR003.3 technologies following this architecture should not impede the development of complex interaction scenarios likely for future business interactions

D-AR003.4 modules that are orthogonal must be allowed to evolve independently of each other and still work within the architecture

D-AR003.5 modularity must support common business functions such as reliability, security, transactions, etc.

D-AR003.6 specs that are created in conformance with the architecture do not have to go through a formal process to be considered conformant
Received on Friday, 31 May 2002 10:27:26 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:56 UTC