- From: Austin, Daniel <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Apr 2002 09:39:57 -0600
- To: "'Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)'" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hi Roger, My current strategy for dealing with this problem has been to literally tack on the prefix clause "...to develop." I did this for # 20 but neglected to do it for # 17 & 18. Group: please consider #17 & 18 to be goals for the architecture not for the group itself. At some point these will all need re-ordering, but doing it now will cause much confusion. Regards, D- > -----Original Message----- > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com] > Sent: Tuesday, April 02, 2002 9:26 AM > To: 'Austin, Daniel'; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: Face-toface review draft of requirements document > > > D-AG0017 appears, because of the ordering of the numbers, > under the heading > "In addition, the Working Group will also act to:". The verb > that starts > the sentence, however, refers to the previous heading, "To develop a > standard reference architecture for web services that:". > Note that the > tenses of the verbs are different, as well as the meaning in > context. One > refers to what the architecture is supposed to do, the other > to what the > working group is supposed to do. > > This happened because the number was assigned late in the game and the > earlier numbers were already taken, not because of any > judgement as to the > logic of the matter. > > I'm not sure how to fix this. Renumber? Order > non-sequentially in number? > Eliminate the numbers? Bring the heading into the text so it > no longer > starts, "... Provides" but includes the proper prefix? > Change the tense of > the verb, and the meaning, so that it refers to the working > group rather > than the architecture? > > It seems to me that the last alternative is the least > desirable because the > metrics refer to the architecture, not the group activities. > > Does D-AG0018 also have the same problem? It looks to me > like the metrics > mostly have to do with aspects of the architecture, not > activities of the > working group. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com] > Sent: Monday, April 01, 2002 7:12 PM > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Face-toface review draft of requirements document > > > Gentlebeings, > > Thanks to the valiant efforts of my co-editors, I've > uploaded yet > another updated version of the requirements draft (editor's > copy). This > version is the last that will be published prior to the > face-to-face meeting > in San Jose. This version includes the most recent wording of > the draft > goals as well as associated CSFs and proposed requirements. > > I've not edited all of the text proposed by champions for their > goals. Nor have i modified the ordering or presentation > beyond trying to fit > the text into the document in a reasonable fashion. > > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/wd-wsawg-reqs-04012002.html > > Please send all comments to me and CC the mailing list as well. > > Thanks to Sharad and Abbie for all their hard work! > > Regards, > > D- > > ************************************************************** > ********* > Dr. Daniel Austin, Sr. Technical Architect > austin.d@ic.grainger.com (847) > 793 5044 > Visit: http://www.grainger.com > > "Sapere Aude!" > > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 2 April 2002 11:11:26 UTC