RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture

Right.
 
To be more specific about expectations, my personal take is that SOAP,
WSDL and UDDI should be relatively easy to map, Choreography might be a
real problem, but I think some very interesting insights might result
from trying to map the specs involved with the "ilities".  For example,
because of the work of the MTF folk I think that WSDM is going to map
nicely.  But what about security and RM specs?  SAML?  WS-Security?
WS-RM?  etc.  It seems to me that they may be a bit tougher to place,
and thinking about this may actually help us to see where we need to
expand the framework of the architecture.
 
Or might not.  As I keep saying, it's just an idea.  Might be fruitful,
might not.
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 12, 2003 4:38 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Mapping Specs to the Architecture


However, although I do not remember the exact words TimBL used (and
anyway he generally talks in such a way that I might not even be able to
define the concept of the exact words he used), it may be that his
question was not, "Have we provided a mapping of specs onto an
architecture diagram", but "Have we provided a diagram on which specs
can be mapped".  That's kind of a different question and probably a
better one.

 
Yes, that's the way I originally understood TimBL remarks. In other
words, it would be nice to have an architecture spec that could identify
areas currently covered by standard efforts and company proprietary
specs (e.g. Choreography - we don't need to identify the individual
specs if we don't want to), areas only currently addressed by company
proprietary specs (e.g. Transactions - again, no need to mention
specific specs), and areas not currently addressed by any specification
effort, be it from a standards organization or from specific companies
(e.g. Dave Orchard's proposed caching of SOA responses for higher
network perf).
 
Ugo