- From: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>
- Date: Wed, 5 Feb 2003 10:30:08 -0600
- To: dmh@contivo.com, hugo@w3.org, Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com, Tom_Carroll@grainger.com, www-ws-arch@w3.org, www-wsa-comments@w3.org
Greetings, Per my action item from the previous f2f meeting, I have an action item to propose a resolution for issue #23 [1]. This proposal is intended to comply with the WSA Issues Process [2]. Issue #23 concerns an email from Dr. Paul Meurisse (paul.meurisse@veritasitmanagement.com) [3]. This email contains a number of suggestions for modifying the Requirements document [4]. There are two possible paths to go with here; either a) to accept the comments, but suggest instead that the changes be made to the architecture document (they aren't requirements really) or b) agree with the comments but explain that the group feels that our efforts are better spent on the arch document rather than making massive changes to the requirements at this stage. I've included proposed text for both of these responses below. The group should discuss this. <original comment> See [3] </original comment> <proposed response index = 1> Dear Dr. Meurisse, Thank you very much for your comment to the WSA Working Group. We very much appreciate your time and effort in sending us this comment. Your comment has been added to the WSA Issues List [1] and will be resolved according to the WSA Issues process [2]. Your comments are indeed well-thought out and substantive, but the WSA Working Group feels that these issues should be addressed as part of the ongoing work on the WSA Architecture document itself [4], rather than in the Requirements document.[5] Again, thanks for your comment. Regards, D- </proposed response> Or... <proposed response index = 2> Dear Dr. Meurisse, Thank you very much for your comment to the WSA Working Group. We very much appreciate your time and effort in sending us this comment. Your comment has been added to the WSA Issues List [1] and will be resolved according to the WSA Issues process [2]. Your comments are indeed well-thought out and substantive, but the WSA Working Group feels that, at this point in time, our efforts are better spent in developing the Web Services Architecture document [4] rather than the Requirements document [5]. At this time the Requirements document is closed to all changes other than correction of editorial issues. This allows us to develop our architecture based on a stable set of requirements. Again, thanks for your comment. Regards, D- </proposed response> [1] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/issues/wsa-issues.html [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/04/wd-wsa-issues-process-20020426 [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-wsa-comments/2002Nov/0003.html [4] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-ws-arch-20021114/ [5] http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20021114 ************************************************* Dr. Daniel Austin Sr. Technical Architect / Architecture Team Lead daniel_austin@notes.grainger.com <----- Note change! 847 793 5044 Visit http://www.grainger.com
Received on Wednesday, 5 February 2003 11:30:01 UTC