RE: TAG Architecture Draft

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com]
> Sent: Monday, September 09, 2002 12:10 AM
> To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: TAG Architecture Draft
> 

> I'd really like to discuss this, at least at the level of 
> finding out how we could get our comments and questions 
> addressed. 

OK, it will be hard to find a slot on the agenda, but 
let's try to discuss its issues as they come up
in the F2F, and certainly on this mailing list.

[The rest of my comments are speaking only as a WG member,
"should" means my personal opinion, not a suggestion
from the Chair.]

> General question:  Should this spec include Web services? 

Dave Orchard would be the logical person to ask ... so,
Dave, what does the TAG think about the relationship
between the Web archtiecture and Web services?  Judging
from the SOAP 1.2 GET binding discussions, I'd say they
believe that Web services should fit with the web 
architecture, not vice versa.  Thoughts?


> General comment:  The document is unclear on the question of 
> whether the Web consists of resources referring to one 
> another, of agents referring to resources, or of agents 
> referring to one another.  It is also not entirely clear 
> whether agents that are programs can link to  each other 
> through a resource.  A resource is defined as services, 
> people, organizations, and concepts (section 2) but it isn't 
> clear whether a resource can be an agent or a program, or a 
> way for agents to refer to each other.

Hmmm, good question .... a lot of Eric's points below seem to 
be an elaboration on this theme.  I'm thinking that these points
should be made as comments to the TAG to help improve the document,
but it's not clear to me that the WSA WG has to worry about them
too much.  Obviously "agents" in the WS world are programs and
"resources" are usually bits of code.  So we have to figure out
how important it is to reconcile our document with the TAG 
document, but Eric should probably respond as an individual for
most of them.  Those we respond to "officially" (not that they
requested us to, but we can anyway!) should be focussed on the
architectural implications for WSA and not the TAG document itself.


> -- "hypertext" is used as the typical system example once 
> again, and examples are given of rendering but not what I 
> would call "processing" or "mapping" to programs -- in other 
> words are there comparable cases for Web services in which 
> rendering = mapping to web services implementations?  If not, 
> should there be?

Here's a point that I think we definitely need to understand, both
for ourselves in dealing with REST issues and the TAG, and 
to push back on the TAG to clarify their thoughts.  I think we probably
should discuss this at the F2F, perhaps as part of the REST topic
that Dave and Mark are presenting on Wednesday morning.

Received on Monday, 9 September 2002 10:35:01 UTC