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

[ISSUES] Issue #9 - proposed resolution

From: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 15:48:04 -0600
To: dmh@contivo.com, hugo@w3.org, Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, Tom_Carroll@grainger.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-wsa-comments@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8E999347.2DB8B063-ON86256CC2.0077BC5C@grainger.com>

Greetings,

      Per my action item from the previous f2f meeting, I have an action
item to propose a resolution for issue #9 [1]. This proposal is intended to
comply with the WSA Issues Process [2].

      Issues #7-12 are all from a single email from Joseph Reagle
(reagle@w3c.org). An individual email response will be crafted for each
individual issue in accordance with the Issues Process [2]. This is the
proposed response to #9.

<original comment>
                                                                                                       -----------------|
 D-AC001.1.1:                                                                                         |                 |
 Ensure that no                                                                                       |                 |
 individual                                                                                           |                 |
 implementor is                                                                                       |                 |
 favored over                                                                                         |                 |
 others.                                                                                              |                 |
                                                                                                      |                 |
                                                                                                      |                 |
 While I continue                                                                                     |                 |
 to appreciate                                                                                        |                 |
 the sentiment,                                                                                       |                 |
 it sounds as if                                                                                      |                 |
 it will create                                                                                       |                 |
 dead locks. What                                                                                     |                 |
 happens if you                                                                                       |                 |
 have to make an                                                                                      |                 |
 arbitrary                                                                                            |                 |
 technical                                                                                            |                 |
 decision and                                                                                         |                 |
 *someone*                                                                                            |                 |
 benefits from                                                                                        |                 |
 it, can you not                                                                                      |                 |
 make the                                                                                             |                 |
 decision? A                                                                                          |                 |
 decision will                                                                                        |                 |
 always benefit                                                                                       |                 |
 someone more                                                                                         |                 |
 than someone                                                                                         |                 |
 else, however,                                                                                       |                 |
 you don't want                                                                                       |                 |
 this to be part                                                                                      |                 |
 of the reason                                                                                        |                 |
 for the                                                                                              |                 |
 decision. I                                                                                          |                 |
 think, instead,                                                                                      |                 |
 you want                                                                                             |                 |
 something like,                                                                                      |                 |
 "decisions will                                                                                      |                 |
 be not be made                                                                                       |                 |
 on the basis of                                                                                      |                 |
 favoring any                                                                                         |                 |
 particular                                                                                           |                 |
 implementor over                                                                                     |                 |
 others."                                                                                             |                 |
                                                                                                       -----------------|



</original comment>

<proposed response>
Dear Mr. Reagle,

      Thank you very much for your comment to the WSA Working Group. We
very much appreciate your time and effort in sending us this comment. Your
comment has been added to the WSA Issues List [1] and will be resolved
according to the WSA Issues process [2]. In your email, there were several
comments, which have been assigned issue IDs #7-12. Each of these comments
has been scheduled to be addressed individually.

      Concerning your comment on section D-AC001.1.1 of the requirements
document [3], you state that the text expresses a noble sentiment, but is
in practice unworkable as stated. The editors of the Requirements document
concur with your comment, and accept your proposed wording, with a slight
change, as follows:

D-AC001.1.1 Ensure that architectural decisions will not be made on the
basis of favoring any particular implementor or implementation over others.

      This change will take place prior to the next publication of the
document. Again, thank you for your comment.

Regards,

D-


</proposed response>



[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html#x6

[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/wd-wsa-issues-process-20020426

[3] http://www.w3.org/TR/wsa-reqs


*************************************************
Dr. Daniel Austin
Sr. Technical Architect / Architecture Team Lead
daniel_austin@notes.grainger.com <----- Note change!
847 793 5044
Visit http://www.grainger.com
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 16:47:57 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:14 GMT