D-AG0001-A - Conformance and Interoperability

Greetings,

	I took an action item on Thursday's call to act as champion for two
individual goals. This is the second to be posted. 

	The current text of the editor's draft reads:

"It is a goal of the Web Services Architecture Working Group to develop a
standard reference architecture for web services that encourages the
development of interoperable software products from multiple vendors and
provides a defensible basis for conformance and interoperability test
suites."

	As we consider how best to achieve this goal, we need to ask
ourselves the following questions: 

a) is the proposed text above sufficiently clear, concise and intelligible
to serve its purpose? 

b) what are the critical success factors that we need to achieve this goal?
This consideration should result in a hierarchy of CSFs, which at the lowest
level of reduction will become requirements.

	I would like to propose the following CSF analysis for this goal,
from an architectural viewpoint:

AG0001-A - It is a goal of the Web Services Architecture Working Group to
develop a
standard reference architecture for web services that encourages the
development of interoperable software products from multiple vendors and
provides a defensible basis for conformance and interoperability test
suites.

	Therefore, the web services architecture should:

	AC011-A - Encourage the development of interoperable software
products.
		AC0111-A - Ensure that no individual implementor is favored
over others.
		AC0112-A - Identify all interfaces and  messaging protocols
within the architecture in a standardized way. 

	AC0012-A - Develop a means of identifying conformance so that
testing software can be constructed.
		AC0121-A - The WSAWG should co-ordinate with WS-I on
development of conformance test suites

	AC0013-A - Clearly define and publish a standard reference
architecture document for implementors.

		AC0131-A - Clearly define specific factors that determine
conformance, while leaving sufficient slack in the system for vendors to add
value.

	It's incredibly difficult to visualize this when it's written in
text, but it's easy to understand if you look at the attached diagram ( in
GIF format). The hierarchy of CSFs is reasonably clear. This is of course
only a partial list, and represents only my own thinking. This analysis is
very incomplete! 
Let's discuss this and try to come to some consensus on the CSFs for this
goal. Then we can
move on to the concrete requirements. 

Regards,

D-

 <<D-AG0001a-CSF.gif>> 


***********************************************************************
Dr. Daniel Austin, Sr. Technical Architect
austin.d@ic.grainger.com (847) 793 5044
Visit: http://www.grainger.com

"Sapere Aude!"