RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

I think we did some type of informal work in this area when thinking about which new W3C WGs we could spawn as a result of our investigations. That way we first started talking about security, then orchestration, and finally reliability. Our process has not been very systematic so far, but more based on some of the most urgent and obvious current needs.
 
I agree that a more systematic process could pull up areas that the industry has not being chatting about yet. The risk, of course, is going too much ahead of the industry's currently expressed needs and spending efforts on areas that could be found to be too specialized and niche-related, of low current relevance, etc. 
 
I have the impression that many people in the industry are starting to get the idea that Web services consist of a never ending sequence of new identified technology areas and associated standards (not yet available) and wonder whether Web services will ever be in their grasp. I find myself wondering many times how far standards organizations are from having WS covered. In order to get an at least approximate answer to that question we might need a more systematic exploratory work.
 
Ugo

-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 11:13 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Mapping Specs to the Architecture



I had a chat with TimBL about the WS Arch work in which he asked a very interesting question.  He wanted to know whether we were producing a diagram that would make clear what parts of the architecture currently have specs in place, what parts have specs in progress and what parts need specs but there is nothing in sight.  I don't think that this kind of thing is explicitly a part of our requirements, and in fact I think that we have not thought too much about this particular audience -- the people that launch or coordinate the spec efforts as opposed to the spec writers themselves -- but I think that the expectation is a pretty reasonable one.

I made some really dumb response like, "Gee, got me.  I suspect that it's a little early to see results like that but we may be doing things that could go in that direction".  But now I wonder -- could specs be mapped onto the spaghetti diagram that we have been working on?  If not, does that indicate that some other view is needed?  It seems to me that some specs go onto that diagram pretty naturally, but that some involved with the "ilities" might not.  Or perhaps that is just because the diagram is incomplete??