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

The potential confusion here is that any reference to a "reliable Web
Service" may cause the reader to assume that this is reliable in the same
way as a reliable Messaging Service is reliable - and I don't think this is
what Hao intends at all...

Regards, Alan Davies.



 <http://www.seebeyond.com/> Go to SeeBeyond website >" hspace=0
src="http://www.seebeyond.com/images/i_seebeyodlogoSmallnotag.gif" width=180
align=absMiddle border=0>

  _____  


Alan Davies
VP Standards
ph:   +1-626-471-6050
cell: +1-626-437-0272
adavies@SeeBeyond.com <mailto:adavies@SeeBeyond.com> 







> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hao He [ mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au <mailto:Hao.He@thomson.com.au>
]
> Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:57 AM
> To: 'Hugo Haas '; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: 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
<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 <mailto:hugo@w3.org>  - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
<http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/>  -
> tel:+1-617-452-2092
>