RE: arch diagrams from the f2f

I'm digging back through the email trails following the F2F to mine for text for the spec.  I'm not sure I've checked everything to see whether anyone +1'ed this or not -- anyway


-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard []
Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 12:40 PM
Subject: RE: arch diagrams from the f2f

I personally like the idea of expressing a logical model, followed by a
logical/physical model where various SAMPLE technologies are expressed.  The
key thing is to not constrain the mapping between logical and physical to
current technology choices.

BTW, I think allowing evolution of physical or actual technologies is a key
to any organizations success.  So let's not constrain ourselves to only
today's works.

Hence why I think a logical model, followed by a sample mapping expresses
all the things we want from the diagrams.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: []On
> Behalf Of
> Sent: Thursday, September 19, 2002 8:08 AM
> To:;
> Cc:;
> Subject: Re: arch diagrams from the f2f
> Mark,
> Some clarifications below...
> 	Date: Wed, 18 Sep 2002 21:26:12 -0400
> 	From: Mark Baker <>
> 	To: Mark Jones <>
> 	Cc: Heather Kreger <>,
> 	Subject: Re: arch diagrams from the f2f
> 	I wanted to say that the concern I raised about the
> triangle diagram -
> 	that it's logical, but may be interpreted as suggesting
> the existence
> 	of particular technologies - appears to be the case in
> Mark's slides
> 	(though at the f2f we appeared to have started down this path).
> I don't disagree that the overall diagram is logical, and
> even the more
> detailed views with Heather's categories are logical.  A reasonably
> sound pedagogical approach would be to introduce them as such.
> As we attempt to ground the reader in the landscape of actual and
> emerging technologies though, it think it would be useful to indicate
> where they seem to fit in that picture.  This hardly seems like it
> should be left as an exercise to the reader.  Perhaps it would make
> even more sense to instantiate the diagrams with subsets of
> technologies that represent coherent architectural styles.  This would
> not leave the reader with the impression that every application would
> require the union of the technologies.
> 	I consider it a fundamental advance of the Web over
> previous distributed
> 	systems, that "publish" and "find" are integrated into
> "interact", all
> 	by virtue of the joined-at-the-hip relationship between
> a URI and the
> 	HTTP GET method.
> You somehow still have to come by the URI in the first place, whether
> by work of mouth, google, etc.  Being spidered is a form of "publish".
> Using google is a form of "find".  Also, any of the logical
> legs of the
> triangle can obviously use HTTP GET in/as their implementation.
> 	I suggest that we refrain from attempting to map
> specific technologies
> 	to this diagram for this reason.  If we're going to do
> any mapping,
> 	we should have a separate physical diagram with which
> to do that.
> But, again, for pedagogical reasons, I think it would be useful to
> instantiate the logical diagram when we do so.
> Mark
> 	Thanks.
> 	MB
> 	--
> 	Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile (formerly Planetfred)
> 	Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.     

Received on Thursday, 26 September 2002 20:26:33 UTC