RE: TAG "Architecture of the World Wide Web" new draft published

Mark,

I have considerable sympathy for what you are pointing out.

Firstly, the TAG document isn't done.  The TAG internal consensus puts it at
around 20-40% done.  Further, it hasn't gone through the consensus process -
AC review, Last Call, etc.

Secondly, I completely agree with providing justification for any particular
constraints that are held to or not.  This is why in the latest TAG document
you are starting to see the difference between constraints and properties.
The whole point of constraints is to meet certain properties.  IMHO, the
ws-arch still has considerable distance to travel on really getting to the
heart of what properties it's trying to meet.  But we're making good
progress towards that end.

I think we have to cover all the properties and derived constraints.  Then
we may give various levels of treatment to the rationale for this, and
certainly would cover controversial ones in more detail.

My $.02 worth.

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Mark Baker
> Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 8:59 AM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: TAG "Architecture of the World Wide Web" new draft
> published
>
>
>
> On Fri, Nov 08, 2002 at 10:29:09AM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > AFAIK,
> > asertions
> > about the "principles of the Web architecture" that are not stated
> > explicitly in that document are not constraints on the Web Services
> > architecture.
>
> That's a reasonable position, but obviously the TAG Arch doc isn't
> finished yet, and the section most relevant to Web services (IMO),
> section 4, is almost completely empty.
>
> Could I respectfully request that if you're going to close any
> issues that relate to things not yet covered by "webarch", that you
> provide your reasoning for doing so above and beyond "because
> the TAG hasn't told us otherwise yet"?
>
> To pick an example out of thin air (8-), if the WG is going to
> close an issue about the non-adoption of the uniform interface
> constraint (a given, I'd say), then rather than just saying "The TAG
> hasn't told us that this is a constraint we must work under", you
> could also add something like "We feel this constraint is unnecessary
> because it requires that humans be involved in the process", or
> "we believe that problems can be solved with or without this
> constraint
> but we have chosen not to use it because previous systems such as
> CORBA and DCOM didn't use it", or whatever the reason happens to be.
>
> Thanks.
>
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
> http://www.markbaker.ca             http://www.idokorro.com
>
>

Received on Friday, 8 November 2002 12:36:26 UTC