RE: Label for Top Node of "triangle diagram"

OK, I can buy the idea of looking toward the future.  Here are some thoughts
that use this diagram as a starting point.

1 - I think that SOAP belongs in the right column, not the left, and that it
deserves another row.  I believe that row might be something like:

Message Transmission    ........    SOAP, GET, Reliable Messaging

The next row up might then be

Service Description     ........    WSDL, natural language

2 - I think that the right column might more usefully be labelled
"protocols" than "meta-data".  Perhaps the left row is "Service Description"
or "Service Category"?

3 - UDDI should appear somewhere in the right column, I'm not quite sure
where.  Possibly on the top row, which is very interesting because it seems
to indicate that there is a need for something, currently undefined, between
UDDI and choreography.  Actually, I think that this might be a pretty useful
insight.


-----Original Message-----
From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2002 3:10 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: Doug Bunting; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Label for Top Node of "triangle diagram"



On Tuesday, October 1, 2002, at 12:03  PM, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
wrote:

> I find this diagram to be more than a little scary.  It contains terms
> that
> may (or may not, depending on how they are defined) refer to issues 
> that I
> think there is fair consensus we do not want to address in this cut at 
> web
> services architecture.  I refer specifically to "Organizational
> descriptions", "contracts", and maybe (depending on the meaning) 
> "policies".
>
>
Like I said before, it helps to know where to put your feet next if you 
have some idea of where you might be headed. It is NOT necessary, or I 
suspect appropriate for this incarnation of WSA WG to fully address 
everything in the diagram. But, at the same time, I firmly believe that 
being able to put your work into some proper context is generally 
helpful. I.e., its also a road map.



> Moreover, I seriously do not understand the distinction being made
> between
> "service technologies" and "metadata".  Aside from the observation 
> that one
> person's data are another's metadata, I honestly don't understand the
> criteria by which you assign things to one side or the other.  Perhaps 
> my
> problem is mostly the appearance of SOAP on the left side.  If it 
> weren't
> there I think I would have a feeling for what you are trying to get 
> at, but
> seeing it there I'm pretty sure I'm not getting it.

Think operations and data and you are most of the way there. SOAP is 
the primary mechanism for operating at the message level (unless I have 
seriously misunderstood something :-< )

>
> So I guess I am both questioning whether portions are "in scope" and
> also
> admitting that "I don't get it", or "I don't find it very helpful".  
> It's
> quite possible, of course, that the two issues are linked, since if 
> I'm not
> getting it the thing might be in scope and I just don't understand why 
> ...

There is a double problem here; which you might characterize as being 
sliced and diced. At the `bottom', there are entire specifications that 
are essentially out of scope -- i.e., SOAP, WSDL, UDDI. That is because 
they are not `owned' by the working group. (It doesn't stop people 
focussing on these of course). This is an issue that we could get into 
serious trouble over if we are not careful.

At the `top' there are limits which are set by a combination of 
politics, money and imagination. The last of these is probably the most 
important. These limits put some kind of ceiling on the kinds of things 
that we are allowed to consider.

However, consider this, at the moment we may not know how to `do' 
contracts/agreements/policies completely. But so what? We are not 
supposed to! All we have to do is declare that there is a space for 
them; and that at some point W3C member companies may wish to devote 
some effort into filling the space.

We ARE the W3C's answer to architecture for Web Services, and I am 
conscious (having been through a similar exercise before) that, in the 
long run, having too small an imagination will kill you more surely 
than anything else. I would like us to scope ourselves into a strategic 
place; not merely a tactical maneuvering around the bushes.

Frank

Received on Wednesday, 2 October 2002 11:32:49 UTC