- From: Dave Hollander <dmh@contivo.com>
- Date: Thu, 30 May 2002 13:32:07 -0700
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
There are two separate issues with D-AR003.2. a. Does this csf belong in the requirements document? b. If so, is it correct and necessary to equate abstract/concrete descriptions and design/run time aspects. My Opinions: a. No. Extensibility and evolution are heavily dependent on the structure and design of the underling architecture. I believe the idea comes from the often discussed modeling practice of separation of abstract (what) from concrete (how). Unfortunately, there are often reasons to violate this principle and there is disagreement in the modeling community in where the line sits (for example, is the number of occurrences part of the how or what? ) Given that XML Schemas have both abstract and concrete constructs (at least by some definitions) I do not think we can fully support this CSF. b. No, they are not the same. Dave Hollander --------------------------------------------- D-AC003 is sufficiently extensible to allow for future evolution of technology and of business goals D-AR003.1 separates the transport of data or means of access to Web Services from the Web Services themselves D-AR003.2 description of Web Services be clearly separated into abstract descriptions ("what") from their concrete realizations ("how"), or put another way, separate design time aspects from run-time aspects D-AR003.3 technologies following this architecture should not impede the development of complex interaction scenarios likely for future business interactions D-AR003.4 modules that are orthogonal must be allowed to evolve independently of each other and still work within the architecture D-AR003.5 modularity must support common business functions such as reliability, security, transactions, etc. D-AR003.6 specs that are created in conformance with the architecture do not have to go through a formal process to be considered conformant
Received on Thursday, 30 May 2002 16:37:24 UTC