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

RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

From: Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 22:31:06 -0500
Message-ID: <DCF6EF589A22A14F93DFB949FD8C4AB201073EF7@amereast-ems1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
I think we need to identify specs that fit the architecture.  I'm not sure Frank's diagram is the right one for this, since it's focused on concepts and relationships more than functional areas like choreography, security, or transactions.

I can see the problem - in some areas, such as transactions, we have multiple specs that are sort of "competing" and we might be seen to be taking sides, or trying to endorse "winners."  
 
But we have talked about specific technologies consistently in the context of "examples" that support the abstractions.  I think this fits, since it's impossible to generalize without specifics from which to draw conclusions, and it's also not appropriate to document functional areas without concrete instantiations of them.
 
My recommendation is to come up with a stack diagram, along the lines of Martin's suggestion during the F2F, and map example specs to it.  We are not in a position to enforce conformance, or to pass judgement about the suitability of specs for the purpose, but we can at least classify them and identify their place in the stack.
 
Eric

-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:29 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


 

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:03 PM
To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


II 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. 
 

I guess I see Dave and Mike M.'s point EVEN better now.  I wouldn't object if we did some "education" work along the lines that TimBL suggested, but clearly the point is to describe properties/constraints and let the mapping to specs be left as an exercise for the reader.   
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 22:31:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:16 GMT