RE: Send me Your Lists, Yearning to Breath Free ...

I like these ideas, with some updates.
 
0. The list of specs and companies is easily derivable from the documents
that have been posted.
 
1.  When you say "individual", do you mean individual company or individual
people?  I see no reason to hide the "company" aspect.
 
2. We need to mellow much of the wording to be "fairer".  I also want to
de-emphasize the "proprietary documents" vs "open standards" distinction.
So I'd make your summary into something like:
 
Reliable Messaging: A protocol that allows messages to be delivered reliably
between distributed applications in the presence of software component,
system, or network failures by implementing an acknowledgement
infrastructure.  
Individual specifications and committees
- Web Services Reliability
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrm
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrm>  OASIS TC.
Based on WS-Reliability submission from Oracle, Sun and others (
http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html
<http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html> )  
- WS-ReliableMessaging (
http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnglo
bspec/html/ws-reliablemessaging.asp
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dngl
obspec/html/ws-reliablemessaging.asp> ) from BEA Systems, Microsoft, IBM,
Tibco.   Not currently being worked on in a typical standards body.
 
Cheers,
Dave
 

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 7:46 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Send me Your Lists, Yearning to Breath Free ...


I got a couple responses to this that indicate I was utterly unclear in what
I am suggesting.  Sorry -- I think I was basing this too much on context
established in the telcon, some of it off-line.  Let me try again.
 
It was suggested on the telcon that the WG develop a list of standards
efforts related to Web services.  One comment about the suggestion was to
question whether anyone was willing to do the work.  I am sort of
volunteering to do the following:
 
All of us seem to have made such lists for internal use, but many seem to
view at least aspects of this work as confidential.  On the other hand, the
landscape is complex and we could all probably benefit from combining our
knowledge.  I know that I certainly would.  So I am sort of proposing an,
"I'll show you mine if you show me yours".  More specifically, if people
send me their lists of standards efforts, suitably edited if you like to
remove sensitive information, I will commit to do the following (if I am
able -- I say this in case I get input expressed in a way that I can't
figure out how to handle):
 
1 - Combine them in such a way that individual authorship is more or less
disguised.
 
2 - Remove any statements that seem unwise to make public.  For example, if
I get, "That spec mostly comes from IBM and they're all clueless doofuses
there", I will chuckle privately but it ain't gonna get through.
 
3 - Circulate the combined product to the contributors for comment before
making public.
 
4 - Keep the original submissions private.
 
5 - Respect requests NOT to use a submission unless there are a critical
number, Nc, of submissions.  I suggest Nc=3 might be reasonable.
 
6 - Use my own list (which is not all that great) as one of the submissions.
 
Note that the commitment to confidentiality applies within my company,
subject to the following:
 
A - If push comes to shove I'm not sure I can withhold information from my
employer that I develop on their time.  I can't imagine, however, how this
would become relevant.  I'm certainly not going to handle anything
confidential inside CVX in a way that would be likely to leak out.
 
B - If under 5 above I get a submission I can't use, of course if I learn
something from it I ain't gonna try to forget it.
 
To be more specific about what submissions might look at, here is an entry
from my list about reliable messaging (which seems to be the example we keep
using).  Note that it contains URL's, a brief summary of what it's about,
and some comments about relative maturity and relationship to other specs.
(I'm not sure if the URL's are going to come through properly to the mailing
list, but in the version I have copied below the URL's are links).
 
<example>
Web Services Reliable Messaging
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrm
<http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/tc_home.php?wg_abbrev=wsrm> .  A
protocol that allows messages to be delivered reliably between distributed
applications in the presence of software component, system, or network
failures by implementing an acknowledgement infrastructure.  Based on
WS-Reliability submission from Oracle, Sun and others (
http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html
<http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html> )
A competing spec called WS-ReliableMessaging (
http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dnglo
bspec/html/ws-reliablemessaging.asp
<http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/dngl
obspec/html/ws-reliablemessaging.asp> ) from Microsoft, IBM, BEA and others
has not yet been submitted to any organization.   The two specs are, in
substance, pretty similar (
http://xml.coverpages.org/ChappellReliability20030313.html
<http://xml.coverpages.org/ChappellReliability20030313.html> ) 
</example>
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) 
Sent: Thursday, September 11, 2003 3:37 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Send me Your Lists, Yearning to Breath Free ...



As a followon from off-line discussions on IRC in the telcon today -- it
seems that most of us have our own lists of Web services specification
efforts, both formal and informal, with some sort of characterization or
description of what they are about.  I have one, but it ain't very good or
complete.  Some of these efforts I can find but I don't really understand
what they are about -- and I think there are others that I'm missing.  If
anybody wants to send me their list, suitably edited if you like to take out
confidential information, I would be glad to try to correlate, combine them
with mine and send the result back to the mailserver.