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 12:33:48 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01624B88@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>, "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Agree, particularly the first paragraph.

-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 11:37 AM
To: Newcomer, Eric
Cc: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

On mapping specs ....

If it is not the case that SOAP (say) does not fit into the 
architecture, even the concepts and relationships diagram, then 
something is wrong.

On the other hand, the SOAP spec introduces a large number of concepts 
that are too detailed for mapping into the overall arch.

My guess is that, for the purposes of management (i.e., W3C top brass 
and for journalists), it should be straightforward to explain how 
individual W3C specs `fit in'. We are not talking rocket science, or 
even a lot of work.

Picking up on DO's fears, I do not see this as an exercise in picking 
winners; merely one of noting how those specs that are already owned by 
W3C fit into the overall scheme of things.

This is a major way that the architecture can contribute to 
understanding the myriad specs in Web services land.


On Tuesday, March 11, 2003, at 07:31  PM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:

> 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 Wednesday, 12 March 2003 13:35:40 UTC

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