RE: D-AC007 & D-AC007.1: "Reliable" architecture

 
Let me explain what I had in mind when I wrote D-AC007.1 [1].

If an architecture is reliable, then people can follow it correctly and
build reliable 
Web Services. A reliable architecture is a pre-requirement of a reliable WS.

More specifically, it means the following aspects:
  1 Correct and consistent so there are no fundamental flaws in the
architecture. (Solid theory and framework)
  2 Precisely defined so there is no ambiguity. 
  3 Can be validated against use cases. (practical context)

However, 1 and 3 are already discussed elsewhere.

We have the following options:
1. Move D-AC007.1 to other goals.
2. Move other goals under D-AC007. (It would involves goals in D-AC005 and
D-AC002)

Personally, I prefer 2 but the changes seem to be big.  

Hao He

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Jun/0088.html 

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Sent: 6/22/02 1:58 AM
Subject: D-AC007 & D-AC007.1: "Reliable" architecture


There were some discussions in yesterday's teleconference about the
word "reliable" in D-AC007 and more precisely in D-AC007.1:

|   D-AC007.1 The Web Service Architecture is reliable.
| 
|   D-AR007.1.1 The Web Service Architecture is precisely defined
without
|   ambiguity,
| 	  D-AR007.1.1.1 using standard definition languages whenever
|   applicable and available,
| 	  D-AR007.1.1.2 using standard terms, and clearly defined new
terms.

It seems to me that reliable here is confusing: D-AR007.1.1 suggests
that what is actually intended is that the architecture is defined
with precise terms.

If this is the case, I think that "reliable" should be replaced by
"precisely and unambiguously defined".

Note that such a change would also affect D-AG002 and D-AR007.2.3.1.

If this is not what is intended, which is what Daniel was suggesting,
then I think that D-AR007.1.1 isn't related to D-AC007.1, and we
should have a definition of what a reliable architecture is because
this is unclear to me.

If we agree on this, I think that the whole D-AC007* could be
approved. It seemed to be the last subject of discussion.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ -
tel:+1-617-452-2092