W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Interoperability and Fragmentation

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Wed, 16 Apr 2003 07:51:24 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E405773F7B@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com]
Sent: Wednesday, April 16, 2003 9:06 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Interoperability and Fragmentation



Some things are beginning to seem a bit clearer to me as a result of recent
discussion. 

First, I think that there are some people, perhaps including myself, who had
an expectation that if we defined a Web service architecture well enough
that then one could guarantee, or at least hope, that any two Web services
conformant to that architecture would interoperate. 

With all respect, I don't think that's what WSA ever tried to do.  We hope
(hoped?) to provide a framework for  spec writers to write specs that could
dovetail with one another in an architectural sense.  For example, we could
never hope to ensure that users of different reliable messaging or
choreography specs would interoperate, and clearly we do not have the
authority to ensure that there is One and Only One RM or choreography spec;
but we can try to promote a situation where the choreography specs aren't
tied to one and only one RM spec, because that is the road to COM vs CORBA
all over again.    That is, if we can identify the key properties,
relationships, and constraints of a "reliable messaging" component, and the
choreography specwriters need to build on the assumption of reliable
messaging, [yes I know this is a trout pond let's not fish there right now!]
then in principle people could mix 'n match RM and choreography components
rather than having to get everything from one vendor.

 

 Moreover, I think it's pretty much time to wake up and smell the coffee on
the fragmentation issue.  Yes, fragmentation is not good.  It is, however, a
FACT and it doesn't do any good to ignore it.  

 'Fraid so ... I don't know what to say other than we have to work harder to
produce something that achieves credibility on its own merits, because
clearly the industry is not delegating architectural guidance to the W3C.
(Note the news today that BPEL4WS is going to OASIS for standardization).
I'm sure the marketing departments are hard at work spinning this, but there
is some hard work that we are probably in the best position to do to define
what the properties, relationships, and constraints are in the "boxes"  for
choroegraphy, business process execution, etc.  so that people can make
technical analyses of the extent to which whatever OASIS comes up with and
whatever WS-Choreography comes up with (not to mention the ebXML business
process stuff!) compete or complement each other.   
Received on Wednesday, 16 April 2003 09:51:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:17 GMT