RE: March 26 2002 version of requirements draft

Hi Joe,

	Here is why I worded this goal in this way: AG0020 actually should
be AG0012. It belongs in the initial set of requirements that pertain to the
architecture itself, rather than in the second group of goals that are goals
for the group, rather than the architecture. However, I did not want to
renumber all of the goals in order to put a new one in. I will do this once
the goals (and their number) is stable, prior to the face to face meeting.
Currently, goals 12-19 pertain to goals for the group and are to be prefixed
with " In addition, the Working Group will also act to...". This doesn't fit
your #20, so I kept the prefix attached for this version, rather than
renumbering. I also inserted the word "multiple". You are correct about the
"AG" numbering however, I will correct this. 

	Basically, we have two sets of goals, one set for the architecture
and one set for the group. I should number these differently, because the
numbering is currently inflexible. However, I did not want to renumber
things just yet, because people are still using the numbers to identify the
goals they are championing, and renumbering would lead to even more
confusion. Hopefully this makes sense.

Regards,

D-

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Joseph Hui [mailto:jhui@digisle.net]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 6:29 PM
> To: Austin, Daniel; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: Hugo Haas
> Subject: RE: March 26 2002 version of requirements draft
> 
> 
> Hi Daniel,
> 
> I'm surprised by the way that DG0020 is worded in section 2.2.2 of the
> Req draft.  I take it that it was the result of some hasty 
> cut-and-paste.
> The "To develop a standard reference architecture for web 
> services that"
> intro is superfluous and makes the goal statement inconsistent with
> others in writing style, e.g. all other goal statements begin
> with a verb.  The whole WS-Arch will be a reference architecture,
> won't it?  Mentioning ref arch in D-[A]G0020 only serves to confuse
> most readers.  
> 
> I much prefer the original version, which was like:
>    
>    enables privacy protection for the consumers of Web services
>    across multiple domains and services. 
> 
>        or 
> 
>    enables privacy protection of the consumer of a Web service
>    across multiple domains and services. 
> 
> Also, I thought G0020 was meant to be an architectural item.
> I still think it is.  [Hugo, can you please confirm this?]
> If it indeed is, then the designation should be D-AG0020
> instead of DG0020.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Joe Hui
> Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
> ==================================================
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com]
> > Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 3:26 PM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: March 26 2002 version of requirements draft
> > 
> > 
> > Greetings,
> > 
> > 	I've uploaded the latest version of the editor's draft of the
> > requirements to:
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/wd-wsawg-reqs-03262002.html
> > 
> > 	The XML version is located at:
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/wd-wsawg-reqs-03262002.xml
> > 
> > 	This version is still incomplete. In particular, the 
> > current version
> > does not incorporate the work that has been done up to this point in
> > developing the CSFs for each of the goals done by the 
> > champions for each
> > goal. The reason for this is that the information is 
> > currently not in a
> > state that allows the editors to properly do justice to this 
> > material. After
> > struggling with this issue for a few days, I've decided that 
> > it would be
> > better to allow some additional time for the champions to 
> > summarize their
> > final positions prior to the pre-face2face version of the document.
> > Basically, there is a lot of confusion among the many threads 
> > on this issue.
> > 
> > 	I'd like to ask the champions of each thread to post a 
> > summary of
> > their goal wording, CSFs, and requirements to the list by 
> > Friday March 29.
> > Please put "Summary: D-Gnnnn" in the subject line of the 
> > email. Include the
> > final wording for each goal, and whatever additional material 
> > you have ready
> > for the face2face meeting. Thanks!
> > 
> > 	Known issues for this version:
> > * termdefs are incomplete
> > * reference citations are inconsistent
> > * chapter 2 is incomplete
> > 
> > 	There will be a new version posted one week from today, 
> > on April 1.
> > This will be the last published version prior to the 
> > face2face meeting. 
> > 
> > 
> > 	Please be patient with your editors as they struggle 
> > with a large
> > and sometimes confusing mass of material! Champions, please 
> summarize!
> > 
> > Regards,
> > 
> > D-
> > 
> > 
> > **************************************************************
> > *********
> > Dr. Daniel Austin, Sr. Technical Architect
> > austin.d@ic.grainger.com (847) 793 5044
> > Visit: http://www.grainger.com
> > 
> > "Sapere Aude!"
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
>

Received on Tuesday, 26 March 2002 20:39:39 UTC