- From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
- Date: Thu, 14 Feb 2002 15:34:12 -0800
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
First, I would really like to thank Daniel for putting together such a complete and useful starter set of goals. Second, I suggest the we need to scope the level of our activity before we can get the wording correct on AG001. 1) Are we responsible for ensuring interoperability? If so, how do we enforce it? Does W3C or this WG want to create an escalation process with which to address identified violators? I worked with Philips and Sony on the original CD specifications and implementations. We owned the license to that technology and would have private conversations with licensees that did not conform to the spec. There was always the ultimate threat of revoking the license. Good system, but beyond what I think we are dealing with here. 2) Do we want to create the complete architectural framework that if conformed to will assure interoperability? If so, do we want to arbitrate disputes? This is my perfered position. This is a middle ground that I believe is within our ability to deliver yet still delivers value to the community. 3) Do we want to publish an architectural framework that will be used in conjunction with other standards and frameworks? I think this is too weak and ineffectual. I also believe this would run counter to the W3C Quality goals (although I am not expert on these.) If we choose (2), then I would propose the following wording: [AG001-a] provides a complete reference framework that encourages the development of interoperable software products from multiple vendors and provides a defensible basis for conformance and interoperability test suites. Regards, Dave Hollander Contivo, Inc.
Received on Thursday, 14 February 2002 18:35:10 UTC