Re: Issue 6413 - just thinking

There's something to be said about job security  :-)

thanks
-Doug
______________________________________________________
STSM |  Standards Architect  |  IBM Software Group
(919) 254-6905  |  IBM 444-6905  |  dug@us.ibm.com
The more I'm around some people, the more I like my dog.



Gilbert Pilz <gilbert.pilz@oracle.com> 
05/06/2009 03:18 PM

To
Doug Davis/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>, Geoff Bullen <Geoff.Bullen@microsoft.com>, 
Katy Warr <katy_warr@uk.ibm.com>, "public-ws-resource-access@w3.org" 
<public-ws-resource-access@w3.org>
Subject
Re: Issue 6413 - just thinking






I've run across this same complaint many times when dealing with 
customers, analysts, and other non-standards people. The common suspicion 
seems to be that we split the WS-* material up into lots of semi-duplicate 
specs with weird inter-relationships so we'd be the only ones who could 
ever understand it and thus assure ourselves of a job.

- gp

Doug Davis wrote: 

Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> wrote on 05/06/2009 10:26:49 AM:

> On Wed, 6 May 2009, Katy Warr wrote:
> 
> > Yves
> >
> > I guess that by 'more general' you mean that a separate fragment spec
> > would be re-usable outside the context of WS-Transfer?   In theory, I
> > could imagine this might be a possibility but, in practice, I can't 
think
> > of a real example.  I'm concerned that we'd create an extra 
specification
> 
> Ok, so following the same logic, SOAP and WSDL should be in the same 
spec 
> and namespace, almost nobody using WSDL is not using SOAP, so it would 
be 
> a good match.
> I think I am not sold to that idea ;)

Be careful - to some all of the splitting we've done has really WS*/SOAP. 
Personally I dislike that SOAP has so many 'parts'.  I didn't see the 
point 
of WSA (which is so small) being split into 3.  I just got thru listening 
to an analyst complain about how we messed up WS* because its so 
complicated 
and this proliferation of specs did not help.   
-Doug