RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

David
 
You said ...
 
>>>Doing an architecture that doesn't mention a single spec other than soap,
wsdl is probably not as useful as it could be.  But where do we draw the
line on what we mention, and thence compare?  Should it be on areas where
there is no obvious disagreement, say ws-security?<<<
 
Aren't we putting the cart before the horse? Don't we need to identify what
needs standardization and what the benefit would be before we start thinking
about specs. If we do this, then individuals and individual companies can
form their own views on which standar is likely to "win" or not.
 
Thoughts?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 5:03 PM
To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


I agree we could do it in principle.  Indeed, I do this in my talks to show
some of the range of possibility.  But that's typically me showing the lay
of the land.  One could argue sure, the wsa could do the same thing.  But
why?  
 
Let's go down the trout pond slightly:
 
We talk about choreography.  So now we list a few acronyms.  Then we start
describing them.  Oh, and now we better compare them.  Then I see value
judgements emerging "In this particular scenario, foo is better than bar".
But I as a vendor will have opinions about those values.  Which means we
need to pick winners.  Ouch.  As soon as we start "documenting" the lay of
the land, I think we will end up being in trouble.
 
I guess where I'm going, is that I'm also torn on this.  Doing an
architecture that doesn't mention a single spec other than soap, wsdl is
probably not as useful as it could be.  But where do we draw the line on
what we mention, and thence compare?  Should it be on areas where there is
no obvious disagreement, say ws-security?
 
I ask again, what would the point be? Is the ws-arch to provide educational
material, ala conferences/books?  There's a big difference between doing an
architecture for education reasons vs doing an architecture for describing
properties/constraints.
 
Cheers,
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:49 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: 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?