W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > May 2003

RE: Proposed Venn Diagrams

From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 12:16:00 -0400
Message-ID: <5C76D29CD0FA3143896D08BB1743296A0101CEF4@bsebe001.americas.nokia.com>
To: <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>

As a friendly ammendment, it would clarify to our audience to explicitly 
map where the current technologies reside - like how you situated Corba 
in this domain. Things like GET/SOAP response, CGI, etc. Since this would 
make the the diagrams too busy, a second set of diagrams with the 
technologies mapped is a good solution. We can do this at the f2f.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: ext Champion, Mike [mailto:Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com]
>Sent: May 09, 2003 11:33 AM
>To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>Subject: RE: Proposed Venn Diagrams
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
>> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 10:48 AM
>> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
>> Subject: Re: Proposed Venn Diagrams
>> True, but I think B is much too large relative to C.  The 
>> vast majority
>> of the Web uses uniform interface semantics.
>I should probably put a note that the relative sizes are not 
>meant to be
>significant, but are constrained by the geometry of 
>representing overlaps.
>Of course, anyone who has some more than rudimentary graphic 
>skills (not to
>mention complete color vision) is welcome to tweak these.
>But on to the substantive point ...[baiting hook; casting 
>line; fishing for
>Uhh, do all those CGI scripts on the Web use "uniform 
>interface semantics"?
>If so (because they are accessed via HTTP POST, I presume) 
>what makes HTML
>forms more "uniform" in their semantics than SOAP messages?  And if the
>scripts/cookies/app servers/etc. are in B but not C, then is B 
>really much
>too large relative to C?  
>> Right, but then the interface is no longer declared with XML 
>> (gasp! 8-),
>> it's declared with HTTP, so "XML Interface Services" isn't 
>an accurate
>> description of what's going on.  Perhaps that's not such a 
>> big deal, but
>> it could be a point of confusion.  Maybe a footnote would help.
>Yeah, good point.  That's what comes from midnight 
>inspirations, consistency
>suffers.  I do agree that since I make such a big deal out of 
>the value that
>XML brings to the picture in the text, I need to put it in the picture
>somehow.  And anyway, we can definitely come up with a better label for
>"Circle F" 
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 12:17:11 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:51 UTC