- From: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 14:30:44 -0500
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Greetings, Thanks to everyone who has so far commented on the proposed mission statement. Those of you who have not yet sent your comments, please do so. I wanted to list a few things that I think will help us as we move toward our mission statement: 1) Let's abstract the ideas from the technology (or the "what" from the "how") Our mission statement (and CSFs) should not mention any specific technologies by name. Our mission should state the problem we are trying to solve. the CSF analysis deals with the "what". Technologies come and go, standards don't. 2) Issues like machine-readability are very important but are at a lower level of abstraction than our mission statement. This is a requirement; not a mission. Let's concentrate on getting the mission settled, and then we can work our way down the hierarchy from mission to goals to CSFs to requirements. Keeping our thinking focused on the right level of abstraction at any given time is the most difficult challenge in executing this technique. 3) Ideally, our mission statement should be small and simple enough to fit on a business card, and its meaning should be clear to everyone, and free to technical jargon. This is all just advice - I'm just trying to facilitate this exercise. I'll faithfully write up and perform "wordsmithing" on whatever the group agrees upon. Regards, D- ************************************************* Dr. Daniel Austin Sr. Technical Architect / Architecture Team Lead daniel_austin@notes.grainger.com <----- Note change! 847 793 5044 Visit http://www.grainger.com "If I get a little money, I buy books. If there is anything left over, I buy clothing and food." -Erasmus
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 15:30:46 UTC