W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > April 2000

Re: Announcement: WWW9 Panel on XML and Protocols, 17 May 2000

From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 10 Apr 2000 22:10:00 -0400
To: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Janet Daly <janet@w3.org>
Message-ID: <20000410220959.C19159@w3.org>
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
To: Janet Daly <janet@w3.org>
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: Announcement: WWW9 Panel on XML and Protocols, 17 May 2000
Reply-To: 
In-Reply-To: <x5zor81lln.fsf@bitsko.slc.ut.us>; from ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us on Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:52:36PM -0500

Janet - would you like to look this over before I send it out? I'll be
thinking about how to end ti less abruptly while whippin' G's ass in
QPong.

Pending Headers:
From: Eric Prud'hommeaux <eric@w3.org>
To: Ken MacLeod <ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org, Janet Daly <janet@w3.org>
Bcc: 
Subject: Re: Announcement: WWW9 Panel on XML and Protocols, 17 May 2000
Reply-To: 
In-Reply-To: <x5zor81lln.fsf@bitsko.slc.ut.us>; from ken@bitsko.slc.ut.us on Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:52:36PM -0500

On Wed, Apr 05, 2000 at 12:52:36PM -0500, Ken MacLeod wrote:
> Janet Daly <janet@w3.org> writes:
> 
> > Title: XML Protocols Shakedown
> > 
> > Date: Wednesday 17 May 2000 
> 
> > The Internet and Web communities are bubbling over with proposals
> > for the use of XML in network protocols and distributed applications
> > - XML-RPC, SOAP, XMI, WebDAV, ICE and IOTP are only a few examples.
> 
> > The panelists hope to engage the audience in the evaluation of a
> > range of proposals, and continue discussion that separates out the
> > needs for common, interrelated standards.
> 
> What can be done prior to this panel to improve the chances of this
> panel achieving it's goals?

Indeed, and what are those goals?

Overall, the objective is to provide as mush unity as possible to the
various XML protocols and optimize for utility, simplicity and
interroperability. While these three ideals may appear at odds, good
protocol design has the potential to give us an identifiable optimum.

In a recent conversation with Noah Mendelsohn, he raised these issues:

  What is the purpose of this panel discussion? What is the scope, how
  do we characterize success and what homework should the panelists and
  audience have done when they arrive?

  Which of the many issues raised on xml-dist-app and various BOFs is
  most interesting? What application domains do we want to investigate,
  or should we just state that this is a diverse community and try to
  attack them all?

  If this forum is geared towards low-level messaging problems,
  where do people go to discuss higher level [business] requirements?

I can propose answers to some of the questions, but I need feedback
from the community. We have three hours and we'd all like to use it
efficiently.

There is a wide range of XML-protocols already on the table and I'm
sure more will arise as the BOF draws near. The panel represents many
of the organizations promoting those protocols and many diverse
interests. A well prepared panel will have a solid knowledge of at
least one of the proposals as well as a good sense of what the others
provide. The audience will likely represent many potential users of
the protocols and have may taken some time to consider their
requirements, which apply to their own business and which are common
to many users of XML.

I would like to see some discussion on xml-dist-app about which
protocols and application domains the participants find most
interesting/relevant. At this point, I think that our discussion
should encompass the whole landscape from underlying protocols to the
needs of specific business requirements (no job too big or too small).

-- 
-eric

(eric@w3.org)
Received on Monday, 10 April 2000 22:10:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:56 GMT