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

Re: A stratification picture

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:52:14 -0700
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Message-Id: <F0C14934-864D-11D7-801B-000393A3327C@fla.fujitsu.com>

Eric:
   Thanks for your kind words.

   I agree, that we need to make sure that levels 0 and 1 are right for 
this release; certainly for the heartbeat.

   I do think that we cannot come of final call without doing something 
here though. And I do not think that it involves a huge effort either. 
The reason is that (a) the REST folks are going to want to see 
something concrete and (b) IBM (and others) is also going to need 
something that they can relate to.

Frank

On Wednesday, May 14, 2003, at 12:19  PM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:

>
> Frank,
>
> I actually think this work is very interesting and pertinent.  It 
> provides a good way of categorizing and separating the problem spaces.
>
> But I'd also suggest that for "V1" of the architecture that we try to 
> limit the scope to levels 0 and 1, and plan to return to the semantic 
> questions in a future version.
>
> I had made an earlier proposal to confine the "V1" scope primarily to 
> the relationships among the XML applications, which is somewhat 
> related to my suggestion here -- meaning that we try to nail down more 
> of the "known" or at least relatively known universe before expanding 
> the scope.
>
> I think we know, for example, that we need to establish the 
> relationship among SOAP, WSDL, and UDDI as a kind of first principle 
> (and we have definitely been working on this).  And I think we also 
> know we need to estbablish the relationships among the "first 
> principle" technologies and some of the "higher level" technologies.  
> But I do not think we are far enough along with this basic work to 
> undertake (at least not at the same time or without serious 
> distraction) the work to establish relationships among the 
> technologies and the semantics of their application.
>
> So my suggestion would be to find a good place for the diagram, and 
> use the diagram (with the accompanying text) to help explain what's in 
> scope for "V1 WS."
>
> Eric
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, May 14, 2003 1:52 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: A stratification picture
>
>
> This picture is intended to help clarify some of what I meant about
> stratification.
>
> The white concepts belong to what I was calling level 0 stratification:
> We have a message, and the message has a sender. (There is of course
> much more)
>
> The yellowed box (description) is at level 1. By having an agreed way
> of describing messages we can gain increased interoperability,
> primarily at the syntactic level.
>
> The green boxes are examples of concepts belonging to a level 2
> stratification. REST, application specific and ACTION SOA are all
> alternatives.
>
> The relationship between these concepts is interesting, as it also
> points to automation tools.
>
> 1. Having a machine readable description of a message allows tools to
> verify that a message conforms to the description, and may also help
> tools to generate conforming messages.
>
> 2. When a description encodes a semantics, that means that valid
> messages (in this case) are also valid entities in the semantics. In
> the case of REST, that would mean that we could state that a particular
> message is a GET message for example.
>
> 3. Similarly, when we state that a message satisfies a semantics, we
> state that the message is a valid POST message, or a valid invoice
> request message (in the case of application specific semantics). If it
> is possible to describe the semantics in a machine readable form, then
> we could have tools that automatically verify that a message is a valid
> REST message -- potentially meaning more than syntactic; it could
> include a check for example that a referenced URI denoted a valid
> resource.
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 14 May 2003 16:52:34 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:19 GMT