RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG

Hi Hugo,

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org]
> Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 12:57 PM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG
> 
> 
> * Austin, Daniel <Austin.D@ic.grainger.com> [2002-02-14 11:01-0600]
> [..]
> > Proposed Goals for the Web Services Architecture Working Group
> > 
> [..]
> > In addition, the Working Group will also act to:
> 
> I think that we should get rid of the 3 following ones since I don't
> think that they will have an impact on the documents produced.

     See my comments on individual cases below, but I do want to comment on
one point: are we here to produce artifacts or architecture? Documents are
(in my view) supplementary metadata; documentation of the achievements of
the group, rather than a goal in themselves. 

> 
> > AG012 evangelize and promote the benefits of web services 
> to potential
> > users, both consumers and producers
> 
> I don't know what you had in mind when you wrote that. Outreach is
> important, but the task of the WG is to write documents and the
> documents produced should do that for us.

	Actually I tend to agree, but I wasn't arguing for or against it; I
was simply adding it to the list because it was mentioned by the Right
Honorable Member from Cisco, as recorded in the notes from last week. [1]

	Just to clarify again; I am not advocating all of these and they do
not represent my personal opinions in every case; I tried to summarize the
issues indicated in the notes, as well as my own.

> 
> > AG013 co-ordinate the development of web services within 
> W3C, together with
> > other W3C Working Groups where there is overlap among their 
> problem domains
> 
> Indeed, and that should be done through the Web Services Coordination
> Group[1].
> 
> > AG014 serve as liaison with groups outside W3C who are 
> working on web
> > services in order to achive interoperability and reduce 
> duplication of
> > effort
> 
> It is true that we should acknowledge and consider other efforts. Our
> charter identifies 4 existing external groups[2] having a relationship
> with our architecture work. Our Group should not act as a general
> liaison role with the rest of the Web services world per se though.
> The WSCG should look into this.

	Okay, but I think it's worth discussing both of these. Our only
interface to the WSCG (according to the process document) is Chris in his
role as Chair. I read the charter to mean that our WG should take on these
tasks directly rather than through the WSCG. 

Regards,

D-


[1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/02/06-minutes

Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 14:33:32 UTC