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: Wed, 12 Mar 2003 09:56:15 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817D59@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
I agree.   However, although I do not remember the exact words TimBL
used (and anyway he generally talks in such a way that I might not even
be able to define the concept of the exact words he used), it may be
that his question was not, "Have we provided a mapping of specs onto an
architecture diagram", but "Have we provided a diagram on which specs
can be mapped".  That's kind of a different question and probably a
better one.  In fact, that's really more in line with what I remember
him saying.  I don't recall any implication that the mapping itself was
something that he was looking to us for, but definitely that he was
hoping for some sort of structure on which that mapping could usefully
be done.
Again, the only way to find out is to try it, but I agree that a mapping
of specs onto our diagram should not be a part of our formal output.  I
still think, however, that it is an interesting and useful exercise.  We
might find out several things:  
1)There might be specs that are difficult to place on the diagram.  If
so, would this mean that some different view would be useful?  
2)We might, in the process, understand better some sort of framework for
discussing the need for future work in WS specs.  This is definitely
part of our charter, is it not? 
 3)We might find that there are parts of the diagram where several specs
cluster into one box.  Is more elaboration indicated in that area?  
I personally think that all three of these outcomes are fairly likely to
occur, but I could be wrong.
I think it is a useful exercise, but I don't think it would be wise to
carry the exercise to an extreme.  Nor do I think that it is really
useful to debate at length whether to do it.  For Pete's sake, it's just
an idea.  Where I come from it's considered acceptable to float ideas
around, perhaps give them a try if it seems useful, and see what
happens.  Maybe it turns into a mess, and then one can just say, "Oh
well, it was worth looking at".  Or perhaps something really useful
comes out of it.
-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 7:29 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 Wednesday, 12 March 2003 10:58:44 UTC

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