RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

Mapping Specs to the ArchitectureI agree we could do it in principle.
Indeed, I do this in my talks to show some of the range of possibility.  But
that's typically me showing the lay of the land.  One could argue sure, the
wsa could do the same thing.  But why?

Let's go down the trout pond slightly:

We talk about choreography.  So now we list a few acronyms.  Then we start
describing them.  Oh, and now we better compare them.  Then I see value
judgements emerging "In this particular scenario, foo is better than bar".
But I as a vendor will have opinions about those values.  Which means we
need to pick winners.  Ouch.  As soon as we start "documenting" the lay of
the land, I think we will end up being in trouble.

I guess where I'm going, is that I'm also torn on this.  Doing an
architecture that doesn't mention a single spec other than soap, wsdl is
probably not as useful as it could be.  But where do we draw the line on
what we mention, and thence compare?  Should it be on areas where there is
no obvious disagreement, say ws-security?

I ask again, what would the point be? Is the ws-arch to provide educational
material, ala conferences/books?  There's a big difference between doing an
architecture for education reasons vs doing an architecture for describing
properties/constraints.

Cheers,
Dave
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
  Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 1:49 PM
  To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture



    -----Original Message-----
    From: michael.mahan@nokia.com [mailto:michael.mahan@nokia.com]
    Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 4:34 PM
    To: dorchard@bea.com; UCorda@SeeBeyond.com;
RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
    Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


    I would have to concur with DO here. I think that performing this
mapping is not in our scope, and puts us into the troutpond of choosing
winners and losers and having to actively be comparing and contrasting all
the specs which swirl about in this space. I think this work is better
served by our respective corporate product stategists and the slew of techno
journalists.

  I guess I see this argument better now.  But on the other hand, if we
can't say something like "BPEL,. WSCI,  BPMI, .... all share the following
properties [A, B, C ... whatever they are] that characterize "choreography"
in the WSA."  Assuming for the sake of argument that such a thing were
possible, what's the objection?  Perhaps it would take to much effort to
figure out what all the acronym soup really does at a level of detail and
that we should leave the analysis of how our concepts and relationships map
onto specific specs to the pundits and product marketers ... but would
people agree that this is something that we should be able to do in
principle?