RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

 

-----Original Message-----
From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:34 PM
To: dorchard@bea.com; UCorda@SeeBeyond.com; RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com;
www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


I would have to concur with DO here. I think that performing this mapping is
not in our scope, and puts us into the troutpond of choosing winners and
losers and having to actively be comparing and contrasting all the specs
which swirl about in this space. I think this work is better served by our
respective corporate product stategists and the slew of techno journalists. 
 

I guess I see this argument better now.  But on the other hand, if we can't
say something like "BPEL,. WSCI,  BPMI, .... all share the following
properties [A, B, C ... whatever they are] that characterize "choreography"
in the WSA."  Assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing were
possible, what's the objection?  Perhaps it would take to much effort to
figure out what all the acronym soup really does at a level of detail and
that we should leave the analysis of how our concepts and relationships map
onto specific specs to the pundits and product marketers ... but would
people agree that this is something that we should be able to do in
principle?