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

Re: Normative constraints on the WSA

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Sat, 17 May 2003 10:09:48 -0400
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>, Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <001b01c31c7d$fb12aa20$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>


I think you are zeroing in on what architecture is supposed to
be about: identifying the things that should not change at all, or only
be changed with the utmost of caution, to preserve what value
has been attained so far.  "Springboarding" outside the constraints
isn't consistent with an architecture mindset, is it?  Especially when
springboarding within those constraints hasn't really been tried?


----- Original Message -----
From: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
To: "Mark Baker" <distobj@acm.org>; "Champion, Mike"
Cc: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 4:39 AM
Subject: RE: Normative constraints on the WSA

> I don't think that anything in the architecture of the Web, at least as
> I see it articulated by the TAG or the charter of the WSAWG, says or
> implies that the Web must remain the same forever.  As I've stated it,
> this may seem like a tautology or perhaps as a personally intended slur
> (not intended this way at all), but I'm beginning to think that in
> essence this, or something like it, is a point of real difference of
> opinion and approach.
> Approach 1 - The Web has been successful and must be preserved.
> Deviations are dangerous.
> Approach 2 - The Web has been successful and should be used as a
> springboard to different things.  Deviations are desirable.
> That's probably overstated ...
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Saturday, May 17, 2003 12:36 AM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
> Subject: Normative constraints on the WSA
> On Fri, May 16, 2003 at 07:07:44AM -0600, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > Oh, I see the ambiguity in my response.
> Ah, gotcha.  Thanks.
> > I invite people read the soon-to-be published WSA working draft and
> > raise any Webarch issues one thinks are in it, but we do NOT invite
> > issues concerning WSA's non-conformance with non-normative constraints
> > on it.
> Well, as I know I've said before, I consider the only authority on Web
> architecture to be the Web itself.  So if I can point at some constraint
> which is widely followed on the Web today, and demonstrate that Web
> services don't follow it, then that seems to me to be something that
> goes against the architecture, and therefore against the charter and
> requirements of the WG.
> Anyhow, IMO, this is all going to end up on the lap of the Director at
> some point no matter which path we take, so there's probably little use
> in discussing the "what" or "how".  I'm interested in the "when". 8-)
> Are you planning to request review of the next revision of the arch doc
> by the TAG?
> MB
> --
> Mark Baker.   Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.        http://www.markbaker.ca
> Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
>   Actively seeking contract work or employment
Received on Saturday, 17 May 2003 10:05:33 UTC

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