W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-cg@w3.org > May 2004

Re: W3C/WS-I Coordination

From: Steve Bratt <steve@w3.org>
Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 09:16:50 -0400
Message-ID: <40B73BC2.200@w3.org>
To: Ed Cobb <ecobb@bea.com>
Cc: www-ws-cg@w3.org, wsi_liaison@lists.ws-i.org, team-liaisons@w3.org

Ed,

This message is to request an update on how WS-I is doing in considering 
a liaison MOU, and whether or not WS-I is still interested in this.

As we agreed in December, we sent to you in February our list of areas 
of interest.  At your request, we sent in April the generic essence of 
the MOU that we negotiated with OMA.  At last week's meeting of the W3C 
Advisory Committee, I reported that we had not heard back from WS-I on 
these two items.  I can appreciate how busy everyone is.  Luckily, 
informal technical liaising seems to work fairly well most of the time.

Please let me know if there are any problems from your perspective.

Best Regards,

Steve

------



Ed Cobb wrote:

> 	Steve, sorry it has taken so long to respond, but I wanted to discuss this with the entire committee before doing so.
> 	If you are willing to share, we would be interested in looking at the MOU you are working on with OMA to see if it might be a simpler model for WS-I to use in establishing liasion relationships with other SDOs, but we are not very enthusiastic about a collection of one-on-one different agrremsnts, all of which will require lots of legal time to produce or review. 
> 	The formal approach we have taken so far,viz. the Associate Membership program was intended to provide a vehicle for the first level SDOs to have visibility into WS-I activities before they were made public to everyone. The ability to influence and change has always been more effective earlier in the process than later. Because the WS-I agreements are more restrictive then the bylaws and IPR policies of most first line SDOs, this seemed like the easiest way to proceed. 
> 	I do want to m ake it clear that WS-I is very interested in maintaining our existing informal relationship, which we perceive to be very valuable and trust that you do as well, even as we explore possible ways to improve on what we already have.
> 	I've also inserted a few comments in your text below. 
> 
> *********************************************************************
> Edward Cobb, Vice President, Architecture & Standards
> BEA Systems, Inc., 2315 North First St., San Jose, CA 95131
> Tel: 408-570-8264 / Fax: 408-570-8914 / Mobile 408-464-0733
> E-mail: ed.cobb@bea.com / Wireless: ecobb@palm.com
> *********************************************************************
> 
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Steve Bratt [mailto:steve@w3.org]
>>Sent: Monday, February 23, 2004 6:17 AM
>>To: Ed Cobb
>>Cc: www-ws-cg@w3.org
>>Subject: W3C/WS-I Coordination
>>
>>
>>To Ed Cobb, Chair of WS-I Liaison Committee (from BEA)
>>----
>>
>>
>>Hi Ed,
>>
>>This is in follow-up to our phone call of 2 December 2004.   
>>At that time, 
>>we agreed to consult within our organizations and compile a 
>>list of the key 
>>liaison objectives that might be better addressed under a more formal 
>>W3C/WS-I liaison arrangement, as compared to the current informal 
>>arrangement.   Further, we agreed that if we could identify a 
>>sufficient 
>>number objectives, we would assign one person from each side 
>>to develop a 
>>draft a liaison MOU and charter [1].
>>
>>Following consultation with our WS Coordination Group and 
>>Team, here is an 
>>initial list of objectives:
>>
>>1. Work to support inclusion of W3C Recommendations in to 
>>WS-I profiles, 
>>e.g. have them use SOAP 1.2 instead of SOAP 1.1.
>>
> 
> There is definitely interest in doing this, but the consensus today is that it would be premature since the market has had very little time to adopt SOAP 1.2 and, since the Basic Profile also deals with WSDL, WSDL 2.0 is not ready yet. We will be watching this carefully as we go forward. 
> 
>>2. Improve coordination of public messaging on Web services matters.
>>
> 
> I believe there are no inpediments to doing so today and if there is something specific our marketing committee could do here, I'd be happy to engage them. 
> 
>>3. Gain visibility into each others non-public documents and 
>>test suites.
> 
> This is where the WS-I IPR Policy and the W3C IPR Policy need to be ameliorated. The Associate Membership program was our solution to that problem. Any other solution will have to incorporate at least some of the features of Associate Membership. We look forward to seeing how you've addressed that with OMA, since I believe their IPR Policy is also very challenging.
>  
> 
>>We are just completing an MOU with OMA that may help to 
>>overcome obstacles 
>>regarding differences in IPR and confidentiality policies between our 
>>organizations.
>>
>>Have you made progress on gathering the interests of WS-I in this 
>>regard?  Let's arrange another call after you send your list, 
>>and as soon 
>>as possible.
>>
>>Best Regards,
>>
>>Steve
>>
>>
>>[1] Liaison section of W3C process 
>>Document:  
>>http://www.w3.org/2004/02/Process-20040205/liaisons.html#Liaisons
>>
>>
>>-- 
>>Steven R Bratt, Chief Operating Officer     mailto:steve@w3.org
>>World Wide Web Consortium   http://www.w3.org
>>MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
>>200 Technology Square, Room NE43-352
>>Cambridge, MA 02139, USA / Voice: +1.617.253.7697 / Fax: 
>>+1.617.258.5999
>>
>>
> 
> 

-- 
Steven R Bratt, Chief Operating Officer     mailto:steve@w3.org
World Wide Web Consortium   http://www.w3.org/
MIT Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Laboratory
The Stata Center / Building 32-G522 / 32 Vassar Street
Cambridge, MA 02139, USA / Voice: +1.617.253.7697 / Fax: +1.617.258.5999
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 09:17:35 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0 + w3c-0.30 : Monday, 21 November 2005 18:07:23 GMT