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

[ISSUES] Issue #23 - proposed resolution

From: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>
Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:30:08 -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: <OF3DEA5BCF.551A9924-ON86256CC3.005AFF4B@grainger.com>

Greetings,

      Per my action item from the previous f2f meeting, I have an action
item to propose a resolution for issue #23 [1]. This proposal is intended
to comply with the WSA Issues Process [2].

      Issue #23 concerns an email from Dr. Paul Meurisse
(paul.meurisse@veritasitmanagement.com) [3]. This email contains a number
of suggestions for modifying the Requirements document [4]. There are two
possible paths to go with here; either a) to accept the comments, but
suggest instead that the changes be made to the architecture document (they
aren't requirements really) or b) agree with the comments but explain that
the group feels that our efforts are better spent on the arch document
rather than making massive changes to the requirements at this stage. I've
included proposed text for both of these responses below. The group should
discuss this.



<original comment>
See [3]
</original comment>

<proposed response index = 1>
Dear Dr. Meurisse,

      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].

      Your comments are indeed well-thought out and substantive, but the
WSA Working Group feels that these issues should be addressed as part of
the ongoing work on the WSA Architecture document itself [4], rather than
in the Requirements document.[5]

      Again, thanks for your comment.

Regards,

D-
</proposed response>

Or...

<proposed response index = 2>
Dear Dr. Meurisse,

      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].

      Your comments are indeed well-thought out and substantive, but the
WSA Working Group feels that, at this point in time, our efforts are better
spent in developing the Web Services Architecture document [4] rather than
the Requirements document [5]. At this time the Requirements document is
closed to all changes other than correction of editorial issues. This
allows us to develop our architecture based on a stable set of
requirements.


      Again, thanks for your comment.

Regards,

D-
</proposed response>



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

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

[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-wsa-comments/2002Nov/0003.html

[4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-arch-20021114/

[5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20021114


*************************************************
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 Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:30:01 GMT

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