- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2002 03:06:11 -0500 (EST)
- To: jhui@digisle.net (Joseph Hui)
- Cc: Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com (Champion Mike), RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com ("Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)"), steve.vinoski@iona.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Requirements may make no definition. Properties can. Ok, I'll buy that. But in that case, I'd say that the definition that Steve and I came up with also uses properties. I'd also say that these form a necessary and sufficient definition, while your properties, IMHO, creep into things that aren't necessary for a definition, though they may certainly be considered requirements on an architecture for supporting them. Is that clearer? > Anyway, I did state my reasoning behind the def-by-properties > tack and would rather leave it to the group's consensus than > protract a WS-Def debate that is widely known for being, > well, protracting. Sounds good. MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2002 03:02:46 UTC