- From: Doug Bunting <db134722@iPlanet.com>
- Date: Thu, 07 Mar 2002 18:14:42 -0800
- To: Public W/S Arch <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
- Message-ID: <3C881E92.DC85A814@iPlanet.com>
Copying Joseph's good words en masse: As the volunteered "champion" (during today's telecon) for one of the WSAWG goals, D-AG0014, I wish to solicit your interest in starting and sustaining a "spirited" discussion. The primary objective (of the discussion) is to confirm the stated goal by *rough* consensus, and refine it (the goal, not the consensus ;-) if necessary. The secondary objective is to harvest the upshot of the discussion and turn it into something we can use in near term for identifying "Critical Success Factors" -- whatever that may mean to you -- and requirements. Hopefully, by being mindful of the objectives, we can keep this thread reasonably focused. However, please don't let the objectives adversely constrain your will to express. You're welcome to disregard the objectives and throw in whatever you see fit in the spirit of doing good. To get the ball rolling, let me start with the goal statement itself serve as liaison with groups outside W3C who are working on web 0services in order to achive interoperability and reduce duplication of effort Please remember that, like all goals past D-AG0011, this goal refers to actions of the Working Group and not to our reference architecture. I could find no discussion on this goal except Mario Jeckle's agreement with Daniel Austin's original in an email entitled "Web Service Definition". Sorry, I don't have the URL for that email in the archives right now. One quick refinement: Should remove the "0" before "services" to restore Daniel's original text :-) A discussion point: Is this goal truly separate from D-AG0013 co-ordinate the development of web services within W3C, together with other W3C Working Groups where there is overlap among their problem domains ? I would suggest coordination often requires liaison work. The separation between how groups within W3C are coordinated and those outside are liaison'd seems artificial though we might have very different levels of "control" in each case. Could we align the wording of these two goals or (preferable) craft something general with D-AG0013 and D-AG0014 as sub-points? thanx, doug
Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 21:15:37 UTC