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

Re: RE: Nailing down the definition of "Web services" and the scope of WSA for the document

From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
Date: Sat, 19 Apr 2003 15:48:55 -0400
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030419154855.D22624@www.markbaker.ca>

BTW, in case you didn't know, the extra whitespace that gets inserted in
many of your long subject lines scores big-time spam points by
spamassassin.

On Fri, Apr 18, 2003 at 03:21:06PM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> I'm torn between wanting the WSA to be consistent with the webarch, and
> wanting the WSA constraints to be meaningful.  If anything with identity is
> "on the web" that excludes essentially nothing (Dan Connolly's car is
> supposedly "on the Web" because he has assigned it a URI in a domain he
> controls).

Right.

> As several people noted on the telcon yesterday, an architecture
> without constraints is not an architecture.

Agreed, but are you suggesting that being able to identify anything is
not constraining enough?  If so, you've got that backwards.  It is
*because* the Web is so constraining that it is powerful enough to
include everything.

I think the word you're looking for is "limitation", not constraint.
e.g. it would be a limitation if the Web was not able to include
everything.  Constraints are inputs to an architecture/style; what
forms of solution do I forgo to gain valuable properties?  Limitations
are outputs; what can or can't I do well as a result of the constraints?

MB
-- 
Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Saturday, 19 April 2003 16:32:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT