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

Stack Diagram - An Analysis and Proposal

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Apr 2003 20:33:41 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E026EF637@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
In the call today it seemed to me to become clear that it will be
difficult to come to a consensus about the stack diagram.  In my view
this is largely because this diagram is not, as some others we are
familiar with, intended to clarify a particular issue that has arisen
via conversation and confusion of concepts, nor is it specifically an
aid to comprehending a complex serious of written material that
otherwise is relatively impenetrable -- but instead is intended as -- I
will avoid the term "management diagram" and prefer instead "talking
point diagram".  That is, we all, when giving presentations, use
diagrams that fit our particular temperaments as aids.  They guy I
report to, whose name is Crompton, is particularly known for this.  They
are called, in my organization, "Cromptograms".  Cromptograms are always
particularly lucid when he is using them as an aid, but they are not
generally what I would prefer to use if I am giving a presentation.
They make a lot more sense when he is explaining them than when I do.

Given this situation, it seems to me that trying to come to consensus
about "talking point diagrams" runs the risk of trying to decide who is
personally dominant, which is probably inappropriate in this kind of

As far as I am concerned, within fairly wide boundaries one diagram is
pretty much as good as another.  Some seem more reasonable to me than
others, but I think that this is more a matter of personal style than
objective content.

So what is my proposal as to how to deal with this situation?  Clearly
the diagrams are necessary, but there is probably not an objective way
to decide which is best -- or perhaps not an objective way that is
possible given reasonable time and effort constraints.  I suggest, then,
that as a first pass we just let our Chairs, who are probably the ones
most immediately required to use these diagrams in presentations, decide
for themselves what is most congenial.  We have certainly had enough
discussion of the issues involved with these diagrams for them to
understand what objective content is at least plausible.  And it seems
to me that were they to do this, and after we see how they use it as
actual talking points, we will probably either feel that this is good
enough or we will have a better idea what aspects of the diagrams cause
practical problems.

So my specific proposal is:

1 - Give it a rest.

2 - Let the chairs decide for the moment.

3 - Revisit the diagrams as seems appropriate later based on how they
actually work in live presentations.
Received on Thursday, 24 April 2003 21:33:54 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:06 UTC