- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2002 11:31:45 -0500
- To: "Damodaran, Suresh" <Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com>
- Cc: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Ah, I was only looking in the draft reqts `doc. Ok, yes, that sounds pretty good, though I'm not sure that "stagger" best captures the relationship between these features. I think "bootstrap" is a better term. Thanks for the pointer, that's great. MB On Thu, Apr 04, 2002 at 10:17:00AM -0600, Damodaran, Suresh wrote: > -----Original Message----- > From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] > Sent: Wednesday, April 03, 2002 9:09 PM > [snip] > To me, that means that before anybody even discovers the WSDL to find > out what the specific interface is about, that there exists a > pre-specified interface that can be used to bootstrap the richer > stuff on top. > [snip] > > Yes. There is a prerequisite for this, as expressed for "predictably > evolvable architecture" > in [1]. > "CSF PE4. Stagger "features" in a standard so that even software that > implemented only the minimal features in the standard can interoperate > with another software that implemented more features" > > The idea is that if the features can be staggered (separated into > "modules"), then > a handshake protocol can learn about the supported standards/interfaces, and > their > "level" so that an entity can decide whether to interact with another > entity, and > to what degree. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Thursday, 4 April 2002 11:26:06 UTC