W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Thu, 8 Jan 2004 09:51:23 -0500
Message-ID: <BDD579D96530CA4BAAAD5D9549BDE7790124AE90@resmsg01.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com] 
> Sent: Wednesday, January 07, 2004 9:18 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: WS Architectural Loose Ends / Outstanding issues
> 
> 
> The concluding section of the WSA document should probably 
> [at least the editors on the call today agreed!] be a listing 
> and short description of the architectural issues that a) are 
> significant for the WS industry; b) we cannot say anything at 
> all definitive about; and c) cross WG / organizational 
> boundaries, so there's not an obvious group that can resolve 
> the issue on their own.
>
...

> 
> So, are all of these really in this category?  What else is 
> there?  Can anyone propose (or point to) a clear, 1-paragraph 
> or so description of the issue and resolution options for any 
> of these?

I just remembered WS-CAF .... See Eric's article
http://www.webservices.org/index.php/article/articleview/1297/1/24/
As I understand it, this aspires to be a framework within which different
transaction, correlation, orchestration, etc. specs can be bound and not a
uber-spec replacing all of them.

So, is there a meta-architectural issue here, or is this essentially a
"political" issue of choosing the right specs for orchestration,
transactions, etc.?  Is there anything we could possibly agree to say about
this in the closing section of the WSA document? 
Received on Thursday, 8 January 2004 09:51:25 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:24 GMT