RE: March 26 2002 version of requirements draft

Daniel,

Thanks for the clarification.
I got it.

Joe Hui
Exodus, a Cable & Wireless service
==============================================

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Austin, Daniel [mailto:Austin.D@ic.grainger.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 26, 2002 5:39 PM
> To: Joseph Hui; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc: Hugo Haas
> Subject: 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 20:45:48 UTC