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

RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 14:17:53 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624B71@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "David Orchard" <dorchard@bea.com>, "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Well, maybe it won't end up useful.  Won't know until we try.  I
personally think it's worth at least a little effort to see if it seems
to be producing something useful or a mess, as you seem to predict.
About the activity you describe in the first paragraph -- I personally
think that what you are talking about, and indeed doing here is really
promising, useful and even important.
-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:50 PM
To: 'Ugo Corda'; Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

So I mentioned one "proactive" area in the f2f.  It was arrived at by
the systematic approach of comparing REST vs SOA architectural styles,
and seeing which properties had been potentially lowered using SOA.  I
then proposed this area, and I got some positive feedback and frankly
some negative feedback.  In some circles, it was classified as a "trout
pond", and I was actually surprised it didn't spawn (so to trout-speak)
more discussion.  BTW, the area was how to do caching of SOA responses
for higher network perf.  I don't really know how to proceed with this.
I think a very relevent question to ask wrt mapping specs to
architectureis: are we documenting functional areas, specifications that
fit these areas, or both?  For example: imagine we want to talk about
transaction context propagation.  Shall we talk only about
ws-transaction and ws-coordination, or shall we also talk about btp?
For choreography, shall we talk about bpel4ws, wsci, wscl, bpss, bpml,
bpmi, various research projects?
If standards process to date can be my guide, we will end having an
inclusive, rather than exclusive list.  The "stds" body won't want to
make the hard choice of picking winning specifications.  Which means, to
be blunt, my company isn't too terribly interested.  We have made our
bets on which things will "win".  Why would we want to be part of an
effort that legitimizes things that we don't believe in?  Of course,
other companies have made different bets and have the same concerns that
we have wrt their choices.  Or will we try to slice and dice, and offer
each "constellation" of specs?  Companies A, B, C believe in XYZ specs.
Companies D,E,F believe in 123 specs.  hmmmmm, the mind boggles as to
how or why this would be useful to external companies or developers.

	-----Original Message-----
	From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Ugo Corda
	Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 7:24 PM
	To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture
	I think we did some type of informal work in this area when
thinking about which new W3C WGs we could spawn as a result of our
investigations. That way we first started talking about security, then
orchestration, and finally reliability. Our process has not been very
systematic so far, but more based on some of the most urgent and obvious
current needs.
	I agree that a more systematic process could pull up areas that
the industry has not being chatting about yet. The risk, of course, is
going too much ahead of the industry's currently expressed needs and
spending efforts on areas that could be found to be too specialized and
niche-related, of low current relevance, etc. 
	I have the impression that many people in the industry are
starting to get the idea that Web services consist of a never ending
sequence of new identified technology areas and associated standards
(not yet available) and wonder whether Web services will ever be in
their grasp. I find myself wondering many times how far standards
organizations are from having WS covered. In order to get an at least
approximate answer to that question we might need a more systematic
exploratory work.

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
		Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:13 AM
		To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
		Subject: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

		I had a chat with TimBL about the WS Arch work in which
he asked a very interesting question.  He wanted to know whether we were
producing a diagram that would make clear what parts of the architecture
currently have specs in place, what parts have specs in progress and
what parts need specs but there is nothing in sight.  I don't think that
this kind of thing is explicitly a part of our requirements, and in fact
I think that we have not thought too much about this particular audience
-- the people that launch or coordinate the spec efforts as opposed to
the spec writers themselves -- but I think that the expectation is a
pretty reasonable one.

		I made some really dumb response like, "Gee, got me.  I
suspect that it's a little early to see results like that but we may be
doing things that could go in that direction".  But now I wonder --
could specs be mapped onto the spaghetti diagram that we have been
working on?  If not, does that indicate that some other view is needed?
It seems to me that some specs go onto that diagram pretty naturally,
but that some involved with the "ilities" might not.  Or perhaps that is
just because the diagram is incomplete??
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 15:18:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:05 UTC