RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

Well, that's one possibility.  I was thinking more along the lines of
taking the complicated diagram -- the one with Agent, Service, Legal
Entity, Goal etc -- and doing something like coloring boxes to indicate
spec residence.  For example, a box could be green if there is a spec,
orange if there is a WG/TC and blank if not.  Or the name(s) of the
spec(s) could be put into the boxes with a similar color code.
 
I'm not suggesting that the complicated diagram should have these as a
normal part -- I'm suggesting using it as a template for a special "spec
coverage" diagram.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Newcomer, Eric [mailto:Eric.Newcomer@iona.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 12:50 AM
To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


I'm not entirely sure, either, although this is consistent with the
intention of one of the original diagrams I produced (before the
"triangle" diagrams) -- as attached.
 
I know this isn't perfect, and may not be what we Martin was referring
to when he said we needed a "stack" diagram, but maybe we could review
this again and think about improving it toward becoming this type of
diagram (which by the way I agree we should have, if that wasn't clear
before).
 
Eric
 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: Champion, Mike 
	Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:26 PM
	To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture
	
	
	 

		-----Original Message-----
		From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
[mailto:RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com]
		Sent: Monday, March 10, 2003 2:13 PM
		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 say that kind of thing in "elavator speeches" describing what
we do, but I guess we've never really talked about it, made it a
requirement, or  put it in the document.  Maybe it's time to do so :-)
It would be a good cross-check tbat we cover the ground defined by all
the specs out there, and would have good PR value.