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

Re: [amtf] Thought on the abstractness and modelness of my proposal

From: Jacek Kopecky <jacek@systinet.com>
Date: Wed, 29 May 2002 18:22:13 +0200 (CEST)
To: Prasad Yendluri <pyendluri@webmethods.com>
cc: fablet@crf.canon.fr, <keithba@microsoft.com>, <ksankar@cisco.com>, <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, <prasad.yendluri@webmethods.com>, <sandkuma@cisco.com>, <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, <Waqar.sadiq@eds.com>, Web Services Description mailing list <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.44.0205291819570.16021-100000@mail.idoox.com>

 Prasad,
 I have been assuming that "having something simple and abstract
on which we can easier explain and discuss architectural issues"  
is the goal of AM. But this might be just my simplistic view. 8-)
 Best regards,

                   Jacek Kopecky

                   Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
                   http://www.systinet.com/



On Wed, 29 May 2002, Prasad Yendluri wrote:

 > Jacek/All,
 > 
 > Per the last conference call, we need to first define what the AM will
 > produce and the value proposition that the AM offers beyond what the
 > current spec offers. E.g.  how and for what purpose will the AM be used?
 > We need to have the goals and deliverable for this effort identified and
 > agreed upon (I guess approved at the F2F), prior to embarking on going
 > ahead with concrete proposals, IMO.
 > 
 > Regards, Prasad
 > 
 > Jacek Kopecky wrote:
 > 
 > >  Hi all. 8-)
 > >  I've been thinking about what Sanjiva seems to dislike about the
 > > direction my first proposal of the AM [1] was going in.
 > >  IIRC his comments were that my notion of Abstract Model is not a
 > > true abstract model, that it's just a reformulation of the
 > > current spec in other words. (Sanjiva, please do correct me if
 > > I'm wrong.)
 > >  When we make a model of a house, it can be built of paper and
 > > matches. It can be viewed as a house built to different scale and
 > > using different materials, but since the plumbing is just matches
 > > and since the model won't stand any wind or rain, it's not a
 > > house, even though it does have walls, roof and plumbing. Using
 > > this model, you can discuss what the roles of walls, roof and
 > > plumbing is and how they connect.
 > >  In the same way my proposal is a model of WSDL - it has the same
 > > terms as WSDL but they are just an approximation, on which it is
 > > easier to show and explain what the terms are meant to do and how
 > > they relate. IMHO this is exactly what we wanted to achieve with
 > > the AM - have something on which the main architectural issues
 > > are solved easily without worrying about the nitty-gritty
 > > details.
 > >  As for abstraction, IMO as the infoset is an abstraction of XML,
 > > my proposal is an abstraction of WSDL.
 > >  So all together, I believe my proposal can be a suitable
 > > Abstract Model of Web Services Description Language.
 > >  Your comments will be welcome. 8-)
 > >
 > >                    Jacek Kopecky
 > >
 > >                    Senior Architect, Systinet Corporation
 > >                    http://www.systinet.com/
 > >
 > > [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2002May/0153.html
 > 
Received on Wednesday, 29 May 2002 12:23:13 GMT

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