RE: Thoughts on AG001 (was RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG )

I think that the word "conduce" is not in the spirit of AG005.  It is,
indeed, a perfectly good word -- but I don't think that it is a very well
known one.  I'd rather stick to simple English when at all possible.

> -----Original Message-----
> From:	Joseph Hui [SMTP:jhui@digisle.net]
> Sent:	Thursday, February 14, 2002 6:29 PM
> To:	Srinivas Pandrangi; Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject:	RE: Thoughts on AG001 (was RE: Strawman list of goals for
> WSAWG )
> 
> Would "conduce" be an acceptable alternative to the
> "enable" and "ensure" camps on AG001?
> 
> I'm of the opinion that: ensuring interoperability may or
> may not be the group's mandate; but surely it's something
> worthy of best effort.
> 
> Thanks_to_daniel_for_the_strawman += 1;
> 
> Joe Hui
> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> =========================================================
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Srinivas Pandrangi [mailto:srinivas@ipedo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 4:02 PM
> > To: Dave Hollander; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Thoughts on AG001 (was RE: Strawman list of goals for
> > WSAWG)
> > 
> > 
> > Let me thank Daniel as well. Kicking off these discussions is the
> > toughest part, and you have done it so well.
> > 
> > As for AG001, my understanding of the charter of this working group is
> > that we will be defining an architecture at a rather coarse 
> > granularity,
> > and leave the task of producing detailed specifications to 
> > other working
> > groups. Is it our mandate to ensure that all products that implement
> > these various specs will interoperate? IMHO, no, but if yes, 
> > I think it
> > will be quite a task. I would like to voice my preference for "enable"
> > as opposed to "ensure" as suggested in the telcon.
> > 
> > From my past experience, I have seen situations where some 
> > organization
> > produces specs, and some other organization works towards bringing
> > interoperability to the products implementing the specs (bodies like
> > IMC, ICSA etc come to mind). If things work out WSIO can play 
> > that role
> > for web services.
> > 
> > --Srinivas
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Dave Hollander [mailto:dmh@contivo.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, February 14, 2002 3:34 PM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: Thoughts on AG001 (was RE: Strawman list of goals for WSAWG)
> > 
> > 
> > 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 Friday, 15 February 2002 12:33:13 UTC