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

Re: Proposed Venn Diagrams

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Fri, 09 May 2003 13:22:07 -0400
To: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <00ca01c3164f$84f0b1e0$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>

Yes, but doesn't it ignore or obscure the value of design
constraint and standards in general to group things like that?

Something constrained to an interop standard is trivially
in the superset of things that may or may not be so constrained.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Denning" <pauld@mitre.org>
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 1:04 PM
Subject: RE: Proposed Venn Diagrams

> At 11:13 AM 2003-05-09, Champion, Mike wrote:
> >I think D and C are disjoint by definition: C uses a "uniform" set of
> >operations  and D uses custom-defined operations.  (BTW, I think I agree
> >with Walden's point that "custom" a better antonym for "uniform" than
> >is).
> In the WSAWG telecon, Frank talked about the "uses" relationship, so C is
> constrained subset of D.
> D can have lots of verbs, but C is limited to the "uniform" set of verbs
> actions (ala REST).
> Paul
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 13:22:26 UTC

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