RE: Whither MEP and Feature discussions?

I like the idea.

For those of you on WS-Arch that are interested in features/properties, I
would encourage you to join the conference call put together by the WSD WG
[1].  Actual date/time still TBD -- looks like either next Monday or
Thursday.

The WSD task force has a very specific limited goal -- from the F2F Summary:
    ACTION: Glen, Amy, Youenn, Sanjiva, JJM to form a TF on comparing 
    the features/properties and existing extensibility mechanisms, 
    to illustrate feature/property rationale, use cases, and examples.

Regarding MEP discussion, I'm unclear as to next steps.  I believe WS-Arch
owns the definition of abstract MEP (see my first cut here [2]), and the WSD
owns creating the specific normative MEPs that will be a part of WSDL (work
has already started).  As Mark's note [3] from the MEP breakout session
points out, there are higher level MEP issues that also belong more in the
WS-Arch.

I haven't seen other replies to David's suggestion -- are there others
interested in a cross-WG MEP taskforce?  I think it may be more important,
in the near term, to move features/properties forward, with MEPs a subset of
that work.  Perhaps they are different TFs.

Don

[1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/w3c-ws-desc/2003Jan/0039.html
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/2003Jan/0022.html
[3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Jan/0494.html

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Friday, January 24, 2003 2:25 PM
To: 'WS-Desc ((Public))'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Whither MEP and Feature discussions?

Hi all,

I wanted to talk about the issue of which group should "own" the MEP
discussion.  Currently, it seems to be finding a home in WSD.  I could
easily come up with arguments about why this should/could be in ws-arch -
and arguments why not as well.

But maybe there is a 3rd way.  Under the assumption that not everybody in
WSD and not everybody in WS-arch are interested in actively contributing to
this, I'd like to suggest that a task force be formed.  Similar to how XPath
1.0 was developed betwen XLink and XSL, and XPath 2.0 between XQuery and
XSL.

One reason to do this is so that the particular WG's can focus on other
areas while the TF is proceeding.

The "Features" discussion might also be a candidate for a TF.

Cheers,
Dave

Received on Thursday, 30 January 2003 15:27:22 UTC