RE: Proposal re REST and Arch doc

Well, the guy ain't dead, is he?

For the record, I think Mark's idea is basically a good one -- modulo some
wordsmithing to avoid the "orthodoxy" issue.

-----Original Message-----
From: David W. Levine [] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 20, 2002 2:05 PM
To: Mark Baker; Francis McCabe
Subject: Re: Proposal re REST and Arch doc

At 02:48 PM 8/20/2002 -0400, Mark Baker wrote:

>That's ok too, but it doesn't achieve what I want to achieve; 
>documenting the *differences*.
>Is that so controversial?
>We could even call it "Integrating WSA with Web Architecture", just to 
>make reference to our charter.

Just to be difficult.. Well, no, actually, not just to be difficult.

One of the problems implicit in doing some of this is that what one really
ought to be doing is comparing against a skinned down version of Roy's
thesis, extended and reanalyzed for issues beyond hypertext. A huge chunk of
the work is relevant, but a lot of the contentious interactions occur
because everyone has a different perception on what's different about "web
services" as 
opposed to
simply accessing "hypertextish" resources. Drawing out the differences is 
only possible
when you have well documented things your are comparing, and good agreement 
on what
those things are. Roy's thesis is far from a tabula rasa, but people draw 
rather varying picture out of it.

- David

>On Tue, Aug 20, 2002 at 11:30:40AM -0700, Francis McCabe wrote:
> > Rather than a section on standard orthodoxies and heresies, it may 
> > be better to have a section that highlights the `input base' ideas 
> > that the WSA draws from. That way, you can point out the 
> > inheritances from REST, OMA etc. in a way that isn't threatening.
>Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
>Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.     

David W. Levine
IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center
Autonomic Computing Tooling and Standards

Received on Tuesday, 20 August 2002 15:11:23 UTC