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

RE: Words for the Triangles

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 26 Sep 2002 10:42:39 -0700
To: "'Heather Kreger'" <kreger@us.ibm.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <05af01c26591$7f8e4a10$0100007f@beasys.com>

I really like the notion of having the 4 stages of lifecycle.  But I think
the use of the 6 steps following is a bit much for now.  I suggest we
include and expand on the 4 stages for now.

I'd like mention of UDDI removed.  While my company certainly supports UDDI
as a major solution for registries, it seems a bit presumptive that it is
the only one, or even the right architecture for all web services.  Perhaps
we could replace "UDDI" with centralized registry?  This seems very much
aligned with the WS-I work, where a UDDI registry is an optional aspect of
the ws-i basic profile.

I'd also like us to make sure we keep the notion of a lack of WSDL for a web
service as being valid - as supported by GET for example.  Thus I think the
following text "A web service is described using a standard, formal XML
notion, called its service description, that provides all of the details
necessary to interact with the service, including message formats (that
detail the operations), transport protocols, and location. "

Could be changed to "A web service can described using a standard, formal
XML notion, called its service description, that provides all of the details
necessary to interact with the service, including message formats (that
detail the operations), transport protocols, and location.  A web service
can also be provided without a formal service description.  This can be
useful in cases where message formats, protocols and locations are provided
in the identifier (ie URI) of the service.  "

There's one thing which that's bothering me a little bit.  And I almost
don't want to bring it up, though I'm sure we're going to have to deal with
it at some point.  Are the phases that a particular component goes through
considered part of architecture or not?  For example: I can define an
architecture for a house.  But that architecture doesn't say "lay the
foundation first, then the framing, etc.".  That's house construction
methods.  Are we coflating architecture with software design?   Don't get me
wrong, I again believe we need to describe the components and interactions
(hence architecture) during lifecycle.  But maybe we're doing more than
architecture.  Again, not that I think that's a bad thing because somebody
sure needs to.  I'm just highlighting that we might have to be careful and
rigorous on what we define as architecture versus construction.

cheers,
dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Heather Kreger
> Sent: Tuesday, September 24, 2002 11:24 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Words for the Triangles
>
>
>
>
>
>
> OK, its not fair to make Chris a gatekeeper and filter for Heathers
> ramblings...
>
> Here are the words I have for the triangles... and a shot at where the
> triangle variations would go. Its in HTML (genned from Word) and
> will need to be munged into the arch document by editors.
>
> It is also a derivation fo the white paper we already had on
> Web Services
> "Web Services Conceptual Architecture". I have permission to
> plaguerize and
> contribute this to the w3c.  I tried to scrub it for blatent
> 'IBM View'
> stuff, I may have missed some.
>
> (See attached file: HKsContribution.triangle.htm)
>
> More words to follow on wire/description/discovery agency. I
> am taking the
> starter set from the same white paper and trying to re-munge for the
> discussions we've already had and some progress we've made in
> the industry
> that are not represented in my old words.
>
> Heather Kreger
> Web Services Lead Architect
> STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
> kreger@us.ibm.com
> 919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
>
>
> Katia Sycara <katia@cs.cmu.edu>@w3.org on 09/24/2002 11:02:27 AM
>
> Sent by:    www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
>
>
> To:    Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, www-ws-arch@w3.org,
>        michael.mahan@nokia.com
> cc:    katia@cs.cmu.edu
> Subject:    RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
>
>
>
>
> Hether,
>  you had said you had some text giving definitions to the
> works you are
> using in the diagrams you sent. Can you please send us these
> definitions?
> Without these definitions it is unclear what you intended (e.g.
> implementation descriptin, interface description).
>  Also, I do not see that QOS, security and management deal
> with all the
> "boxes". For example what is the QoS of an Interface description?
>  Thanks, Katia
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Heather Kreger
> Sent: Monday, September 23, 2002 5:37 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org; michael.mahan@nokia.com
> Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
>
>
>
>
>
>
> How about we do the simple triangle first that 'seems' client
> server.  I
> have sent words for the triangle to chris the editor to render in
> acceptable xml.
>
> The only problem with the triange with the peer to peer is
> that it makes it
> look like the pure requester is part of the scenario. I'd
> rather create a
> new triangle that we present separately with appropriate words.
>
> So, first simple 'requester/provider' triangle (btw, we
> didn't call them
> client and server on purpose for exactly this reason)
> Then we do a peer to peer
> And then Rogers variation:
> See attached:
>
> (See attached file: triangle.variations.ppt)
>
> ideas?
>
> Heather Kreger
> Web Services Lead Architect
> STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
> kreger@us.ibm.com
> 919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
>
>
> michael.mahan@nokia.com@w3.org on 09/23/2002 03:28:58 PM
>
> Sent by:    www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
>
>
> To:    <jones@research.att.com>,
> <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, Heather
>        Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
> cc:    <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
> Subject:    RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
>
>
>
> Here is a diagram which better demonstrates p2p graphically.
>
> BR, Mike
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: ext jones@research.att.com [mailto:jones@research.att.com]
> >Sent: September 23, 2002 01:57 PM
> >To: RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com; jones@research.att.com;
> >kreger@us.ibm.com
> >Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
> >
> >
> >
> >I think the compromise would be to base most of the initial
> discussion
> >around the simple, unadorned triangle, laying out the range of
> >possibilities
> >in the text.  The elaborated diagrams should either reflect
> a union of
> >the abstractions and/or instantiations in the space or should reflect
> >a particular architectural style.  I would be comfortable with
> >the former
> >if it doesn't make things too confusing, but would gladly accept the
> >latter.
> >
> >--mark
> >
> >Mark A. Jones
> >AT&T Labs
> >Shannon Laboratory
> >Room 2A-02
> >180 Park Ave.
> >Florham Park, NJ  07932-0971
> >
> >email: jones@research.att.com
> >phone: (973) 360-8326
> >  fax: (973) 236-6453
> >
> >     From RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com Mon Sep 23 13:45 EDT 2002
> >     Delivered-To: jones@research.att.com
> >     X-Authentication-Warning: mail-pink.research.att.com:
> >postfixfilter set sender to RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com using -f
> >     X-Server-Uuid: EE520CAE-7FCA-4D2A-A2DC-297BA4A725CC
> >     From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)"
> ><RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
> >     To: "'Mark Jones'" <jones@research.att.com>,
> >             "Heather Kreger" <kreger@us.ibm.com>
> >     Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >     Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f
> >     Date: Mon, 23 Sep 2002 10:44:36 -0700
> >     MIME-Version: 1.0
> >     X-WSS-ID: 11918CF6275166-01-01
> >     Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
> >     X-Spam-Status: No, hits=0.0 required=5.0 tests= version=2.20
> >
> >     I am still concerned that these diagrams seem visually
> >to restrict web
> >     services to one messaging pattern.  No matter what the
> >words might say in
> >     the text, I think that having pictures that leave this
> >impression would not
> >     be good.
> >
> >     -----Original Message-----
> >     From: Mark Jones [mailto:jones@research.att.com]
> >     Sent: Wednesday, September 18, 2002 1:50 PM
> >     To: Heather Kreger
> >     Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> >     Subject: Re: arch diagrams from the f2f
> >
> >
> >     Heather,
> >
> >     I  added 3 slides at the end of the set that you sent
> >out.  I rearranged
> >     and simplified the boxes and labels a bit.  I also
> >began to append
> >     concrete technology labels on some of the boxes.  (I
> >just made a cursory
> >     pass at this to see what it would look like.  Feel free
> >to further flesh
> >     it out.)  At least while we are deciding on the correct
> >set of boxes and
> >     labels, I think it helps to identify them.
> >
> >     Mark Jones
> >     AT&T
> >
> >
> >     Heather Kreger wrote:
> >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >
> >     >Hi folks, Here are the architecture diagrams I drafted
> >up during our
> >     >meeting today. I have some words for some of this
> >stuff that I will
> >     >align and send to the group as soon as
> >     >humanly possible.
> >     >
> >     >(See attached file: w3cStack.ppt)
> >     >
> >     >I have permission from IBM to submit both this stack
> >and the origional
> >     >triangle to the W3C for inclusion into the architecture and
> >     >modification by the working group.
> >     >
> >     >Heather Kreger
> >     >Web Services Lead Architect
> >     >STSM, SWG Emerging Technology
> >     >kreger@us.ibm.com
> >     >919-543-3211 (t/l 441)  cell:919-496-9572
> >     >
> >
> >
> >
>  >
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 15:22:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:06 GMT