- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Wed, 6 Mar 2002 10:08:51 -0500 (EST)
- To: stefano.pogliani@sun.com (Stefano POGLIANI)
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Hey Stefano, good to see you here. > I think this is the right path. Making a definition without > sketching out all the requirements and without knowing the > properties of what we are going to build, is imho quite risky > since words could have different meanings for many people. > > As you say, we are not dealing with something "already known", > for which a definition could be easily and unambiguosly found. > Let's explore what we are dealing with and, based on the findings, > let's later give a concise definition. Well, we must keep in mind that we're not starting with a clean slate with our work; we have the Web architecture to "cleanly integrate" (per our charter). Hence me bringing this up now. I understand and appreciate that the definition is a work in progress, and look forward to refining it in the future, but I don't ever want it to be in a state where it goes against Web architecture. I hope that explains why my responses have been, shall we say, "spirited". 8-) Onward to requirements! MB -- Mark Baker, Chief Science Officer, Planetfred, Inc. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. mbaker@planetfred.com http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.planetfred.com
Received on Wednesday, 6 March 2002 10:05:01 UTC