RE: Summary: D-AG0011

I rather thought that #11 was an easy one - it means that we don't design
anything into the architecture that won't work on the existing web. While it
would be wonderful if there were some mythical "web architecture" to which
we could point and say that we are consistent with it, there is no such
thing. Let's not kill ourselves worrying about it. 

Regards,

D-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:54 PM
> To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Summary: D-AG0011
> 
> 
> Mike,
> 
> Agreed we need to move asap and can't wait.  But we've got 
> this lovely goal
> that says the wsarch has to work with the web architecture.  
> My argument is
> that we shouldn't try to define the web architecture in order 
> for us to
> figure out how we fit into it.
> 
> Heck, I'd almost be glad with a CSF that says "We are successful at
> complying with the web architecture until the TAG directly 
> says the wsarch
> isn't compliant" ;-)  Let the compliance *stuff* flow uphill 
> so to speak.
> 
> I'm trying to look for a way for us to do less work, rather 
> than more.  I
> feel strangely compelled to very closely examine each of the 
> CSFs currently
> listed as I'm afeared of how they could be used, and I *KNOW* 
> that will
> spark heaps of debate.  And I don't think I can live with the 
> interpretation
> as it stands because of the potential interpretations :-(
> 
> Dave
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
[mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 12:26 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Summary: D-AG0011
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 2:39 PM
> > To: 'Mark Baker'
> > Cc: michael.mahan@nokia.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Summary: D-AG0011
> >
> >
> > There's a lot of
> > "gospel reading" and intepreting that we should avoid.
>
> A-men, brother!
> >
> >
> > If the TAG has excluded something from the web architectural
> > principles, then I really don't think the wsawg ought to
> define that
> > *thing* has being part of the web architecture.  That's not our job.
>
> I see our job as to contribute a web services perspective to the TAG
> discussions to ensure that the official "web architecture"
> covers our use
> cases.
>
> My attitude toward this issue is similar to my attitude
> toward the SW issue:
> in the long run, we all hope that there is one architecture
> for the "web",
> the "services web" and the "semantic web."  Unfortunately (or
> fortunately,
> since it is fun to live in "interesting times") we don't have
> the luxury of
> figuring this all out in the lab before it gets released to
> the world.  The
> world is out there frantically experimenting with all this
> stuff, and our
> job is to help sort it out.  We can try to figure out and convince one
> another what the One True Web/SW/Services Architecture is
> (and I personally
> tend to agree with most of what Mark Baker says on this
> subject), but we
> have to do SOMETHING long before that has been specified
> (because that's
> what the member companies setup  this  WG to do).
>
>

Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 16:02:51 UTC