RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

Mapping Specs to the Architecture+1
 --Katia
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Newcomer, Eric
  Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 10:31 PM
  To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
  Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


  I think we need to identify specs that fit the architecture.  I'm not sure
Frank's diagram is the right one for this, since it's focused on concepts
and relationships more than functional areas like choreography, security, or
transactions.

  I can see the problem - in some areas, such as transactions, we have
multiple specs that are sort of "competing" and we might be seen to be
taking sides, or trying to endorse "winners."

  But we have talked about specific technologies consistently in the context
of "examples" that support the abstractions.  I think this fits, since it's
impossible to generalize without specifics from which to draw conclusions,
and it's also not appropriate to document functional areas without concrete
instantiations of them.

  My recommendation is to come up with a stack diagram, along the lines of
Martin's suggestion during the F2F, and map example specs to it.  We are not
in a position to enforce conformance, or to pass judgement about the
suitability of specs for the purpose, but we can at least classify them and
identify their place in the stack.

  Eric
    -----Original Message-----
    From: Champion, Mike
    Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:29 PM
    To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
    Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture



      -----Original Message-----
      From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
      Sent: Tuesday, March 11, 2003 8:03 PM
      To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
      Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


      II 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.

    I guess I see Dave and Mike M.'s point EVEN better now.  I wouldn't
object if we did some "education" work along the lines that TimBL suggested,
but clearly the point is to describe properties/constraints and let the
mapping to specs be left as an exercise for the reader.