RE: Draft language on MEPs, synchronous, and asynchronous.

Hi Mike,

I have to disagree in substance (and even the process which you are
proposing), 
if the proposal is to ignore defining key concepts
in web architecture, and instead declare victory by making an attempt. 

I know this group has tried again and again to nail down some of these
concepts,
and many WSA members are at "whatever" point. 
However, other communities look towards W3C and WSA to tackle such hard
issues, and provide definitions and directions.
Fudging in this responsibility would be another sure fire way to make WSA
irrelevant
to real world. I apologize if this sounds like a sermon. I have no desire to
increase the frustration and stress on the well meaning folks. Just pointing
out a reality.

A little discussion on communication channel by people who put in some
thought
on the subject: http://niap.nist.gov/cc-scheme/PUBLIC/0066.html
The idea of a communication channel is not tied to any protocol.
May be we can tackle the issue by generalizing some of the protocol ideas
(say http?)
from the well written RFCs or thesis.

I don't know what to say at this point. If we want to say "we give up!" so
be it.
Sorry to say, I will be disappointed and so would many otherss like me.

Regards, 
-Suresh 
Sterling Commerce (on loan to RosettaNet) 
469 524 2676 (O), 469 323 0234 (Cell) 



-----Original Message-----
From: Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
Sent: Monday, May 05, 2003 12:02 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Draft language on MEPs, synchronous, and asynchronous.





>
> 
> I'm sorry, I still think this is just giving up and that in fact the
> terms have a domain of validity in which they can be 
> rigorously defined.
>

Perhaps, and I also find some good food for thought in Suresh's proposal(s).
On the other hand, we need to focus on the questions that people are looking
for answers to, and I don't think this is one of them.  Geoff's rejoinder to
my attempt over the weekend to extract a "friendly amendment" was a good
one:  by getting "rigorous" we start bringing in dependencies on
implementation-specific notions such as "communications channel,"   which
then have to be defined.

Procedurally, we were at the point of agreeing to whatever way Chris and
Geoff came up with of resolving their different perspectives.  They have
done that, Geoff has accepted some suggested tweaks, and I think it's time
incorporate them and look for new fish to fry.  

Unless there is a substantial body of opinion that says "we MUST resolve
this better before we can move on" I'd suggest we move on.  Dissenters are
welcome to record an issue so that we are more or less required to revisit
the matter before leaving Last Call.

Received on Monday, 5 May 2003 19:15:42 UTC