W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

Re: Random thoughts on the Abstract Model Task Force (AMTF)

From: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 13:31:13 -0700
Message-ID: <3CDD7F91.8821889B@webmethods.com>
To: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
CC: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Krishna,

Good thoughts (though random:). I agree that rushing is the last thing we
want to do and doing it right should be the goal.

Regarding UML I am on the fence, as it is easy to get carried away with UML
:). What are the alternate choices we have? May be worth exploring even if
we rule them out..

Regards, Prasad

Krishna Sankar wrote:

> Hi all,
>
>         Since our meeting last week, I have been thinking about the
> Abstract Model Task Force and what does it mean for the progression (&
> evolution) of the WSDL specs. Here is the summary of the sum of all my
> thoughts on this subject:
>
> 1.      Abstract Model
>
>         IMHO, we need an abstract model to capture the heart and soul of
> WS D3 - Definition, Description and Discovery. The abstract model can be
> in the primer as a non-normative section (of course the whole primer is
> non-normative anyway) or may be in the core specs as an appendix.
>
>         I think the AM would be more useful in the 2.0 realm as a
> reference model and guiding principle. Naturally it would evolve as we
> progress into the architectural aspects of WS D3.
>
>         As Sanjeeva pointed out, the AM should not be another 30 page
> description of the description language of the Web Services ! That would
> defeat the purpose of an AM. UML is a good choice to express the AM.
> This does not mean one requires a deep experience in UML to create and
> understand the AM. We wouldn't be using all the nuances and primitives
> of UML, as we ourselves are a description language. The AM will be
> simpler in terms of UML - in fact most possibly we would use a
> combination of UML and text.
>
>         Now coming to the timing (well, at least it rhymes well !),
> IMHO, it is not a good practice to declare a do-or-die-by-the-June-f2f
> for the AM. The major reason being, many folks do not have the bandwidth
> now, but might be able to contribute in the next month or so. Also the
> next two weeks are very difficult in terms of productivity - vacations,
> long weekend, XML 2002,...
>
> 2.      1.2-by-issues-patchwork-to-1.1
>
>         I think we still need to do the issues patchwork irrespective of
> the AM and thus is not a substitute for AM or vice versa. I am of the
> opinion that we have identified *most* of the issues for a 1.1 - 1.2
> *transition*. May be we should have two buckets - fix now (1.2) and fix
> later (2.0). Let us discuss issues quickly and put them into the
> respective buckets. We will dig deeper into the 1.2 issues and will be
> silent on the 2.0 issues till after the 1.2 is done. If, we as a team,
> have that discipline, I think we can achieve our goals. Remember, the
> earlier we get to 1.2, the faster we could start working on 2.0 !
>
> Cheers & have a nice weekend
Received on Saturday, 11 May 2002 16:29:18 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:20 GMT