- From: Christopher Ferris <chris.ferris@sun.com>
- Date: Mon, 01 Apr 2002 23:33:04 -0500
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- CC: www-ws-arch@w3.org
<HatOff> Mark, The phrase "without third party agreement" is a little puzzling. What exactly does this mean in this context. See [1] for a definition of "third party". How does a "third party" become involved in extensibility? What/who is this "third party"? I could see "without prior agreement", but that too is a little fuzzy. Sometimes, prior agreement is "a good thing(tm)" and quite necessary (like, "you can't use this web service until you've registered an account and agreed to the t's and c's"). I suppose that technically, this is orthogonal to the issue of extensibility, but it points out the need to be careful and explicit in our selection of words and phrases. Most e-business works off of some manner of prior agreement (a trading partner agreement which is typically a contract or legal document). I suppose that technically, this isn't an aspect that applies to extensibility, but it is still something that applies in the context of certain services. When we consider the web today, with a human sitting in front of a browser, presented with a series of web forms, they use grey matter, "common sense" and prior knowledge (shared language) to fill out the forms before submitting them. The user doesn't have to know 'a priori' what fields/values the form will be requiring because they retrieve the representation of the resource each time they use it and they can (usually) figure out what to do based on the contents/context of the retrieved representation (form). An automated resource is a very different story though. Without shared knowledge, understanding and language, it is quite a difficult proposition to achieve the same degree of functionality that we see on the web today when the consumer is a human, with a rather sophisticated inference engine at their disposal. Most software lacks this last critical feature, so there is bound to be a need for *some* degree of 'a priori' knowledge. Cheers, Chris-not-the-chair [1] http://www.dictionary.com/search?q=third+party&r=3 </HatOff> Mark Baker wrote: > All, > > I believe we need to find a goal for our charter directive that "In > particular, it must support distributed extensibility, without third > party agreement, where the communicating parties do not have a priori > knowledge of each other." > > IMO, the closest goal we have that would cover this is D-AG0003, as > it relates to extensibility, so I would ask Nilo to consider this > as a suggestion to add it to his goal. > > This is related to our issue #1; > > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html#x1 > > MB >
Received on Monday, 1 April 2002 23:34:06 UTC