- From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
- Date: Tue, 23 Jul 2002 12:17:42 -0400
- To: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Cc: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
I recommend that we let the TAG decide for themselves if they
have any comments/feedback on our requirements, rather than second-guess
their response.
If they take issue, we'll hear about it and can address their concerns
as part of the process. We do need to get something published.
Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624
Mark Baker
<distobj@acm.org> To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Sent by: cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
www-ws-arch-reque Subject: Re: D-AR003.1; wording re transport/transfer
st@w3.org
07/23/2002 12:21
PM
On Tue, Jul 23, 2002 at 11:55:13AM -0400, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > I just want it to say what we discussed, even though I still disagree
> > with it strongly, and would even more strongly disagree with
> > the revised
> > version.
>
> Perhaps the best way forward would be for Mark to pay careful attention
to
> the language in the actual WSA document as it evolves and help us draft
> language that reflects the concerns of his "constituency" rather than
asking
> us to re-hash the requirements document. In the end, it's the WSA spec
that
> people will pay attention to, not the requirements doc.
That's true, it's the architecture document that I'm most concerned
about. If it's what we're going to be asking reviewers (read; the
TAG 8-) to focus on, then I'd be ok with that. But if we're going to
ask the TAG to review the requirements document, then I'd request this
clarification be made.
Thanks.
MB
--
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. distobj@acm.org
http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Tuesday, 23 July 2002 12:19:12 UTC