I agree, but do we call out a list of specific features anywhere? ... and if we did, should we say anything about the dependencies between them (which there surely are) and how they would/could be composed together? Secondly, if we don't develop the features list, then I think it would need to be a later activity to be done which could drive the creation of a number of other groups/activities to develop/standardize them. We might also find that some of these activities already exist elsewhere, e.g. the recently announced OASIS TC on Reliable Messaging [1]. Is this type of activity - to suggest follow on activities - within our scope? David [1] http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-02-13-a.html <http://xml.coverpages.org/ni2003-02-13-a.html> -----Original Message----- From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 10:45 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Layers in the WSA (was RE: [Fwd: UN/CEFACT TMG Releases e-Bus ines s Architecture Technical Specification for Public Review]) _____ From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] Sent: Thursday, February 13, 2003 1:03 PM To: 'Assaf Arkin'; Burdett, David; 'Duane Nickull'; www-ws-arch@w3.org Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org BTW. Is there any thought of developing a list of candidate SOAP "features" to include in the architecture? Arguably almost *everything* in the WSA is either a potential SOAP "feature" or a potential WSDL extension. I'm not quite sure whether that should have a smiley next to it or not!Received on Thursday, 13 February 2003 15:57:14 GMT
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:14 GMT