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

I agree with Alan about the potential confusion. That is why I suggested for
A-C007 (if it is not moved, or other goals are not moved to it) to be called
"well-defined" architecture rather than "reliable".
 --Katia
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Alan Davies
  Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 2:19 PM
  To: 'Hao He'; 'Hugo Haas '; 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
  Subject: 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.






----------------------------------------------------------------------------
--


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







  > -----Original Message-----
  > From: Hao He [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
  >
  > -----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
  >