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

RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web Services Glossary )

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 08:47:19 -0800
To: "'Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)'" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, "'Hugo Haas'" <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: "'David Booth'" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005a01c2ddb6$bad4cd90$1a0ba8c0@beasys.com>
I dunno.  I think that the term "A priori" should be defined in a rigorous
way.  Can somebody summarize the differences between the definitions that
have been championed?

Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 7:37 AM
> To: Hugo Haas
> Cc: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web 
> Services Glossary
> )
> 
> 
> 
> Well, the suggestion was NOT to put anything in the glossary for this
> term and to use the verbiage below as a response to the issue.
> 
> I'm not sure if we have anything explicit in the requirements about
> supporting late binding, but it seems to me that a number of people on
> the WG consider this important and that this was the sense of the
> statement in the charter.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org] 
> Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:34 AM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: David Booth; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web 
> Services Glossary
> )
> 
> 
> * Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
> [2003-02-24 10:41-0600]
> > OK, we've kicked this term around enough so that it seems 
> pretty clear
> 
> > that it is not going to be a quick kill to get consensus on 
> a general 
> > definition, and I think David is absolutely correct: we need to 
> > address the issue itself, but not necessarily this term as 
> a general 
> > concept.
> > 
> > So I suggest something along the following resolution to resolve the
> > issue:
> > 
> > "The WG is not currently using the term "a priori 
> information" in the 
> > reference architecture, so we do not feel a need to come to an 
> > agreement about the meaning of the term in general.  In the 
> specific 
> > context in which it is used in the group charter, we 
> understand it to 
> > mean "prior information".  We interpret this as a 
> requirement that the
> 
> > architecture support late binding."
> 
> I am happy to put such a statement in the glossary. However, I think
> that we should add something (or a placeholder) in the WSA to 
> talk about
> it. Maybe just to say what you are saying here.
> 
> However, I was wondering if we had actually a requirement about this
> before saying "We interpret this as a requirement that the 
> architecture
> support late binding."
> 
> AC004 and AR004.2 read[1]:
> 
> |   AC004
> |          does not preclude any programming model.
> |          
> |          + AR004.2 is comprised of loosely-coupled components and
> their
> |            interrelationships.
> 
> I think that this is the one that has been discussed when there were
> late binding discussions, but I don't think that it explicitely calls
> out for it. Maybe we are missing a requirement then.
> 
> Or have I missed something in the requirements document?
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
>   1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20021114#AC004
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
> 
> 
> 


Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 11:50:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:15 GMT