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

Yeah, that's great, but are you going to send me a list of the bazillion
other efforts related to Web services with similar comments?  This was
an example of one entry in such a list, not of a list itself.
 
-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of David Orchard
Sent: Friday, September 12, 2003 2:53 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: 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 OASIS
TC.  Based on WS-Reliability submission from Oracle, Sun and others
(http://otn.oracle.com/tech/webservices/htdocs/spec/ws-reliability.html)

- WS-ReliableMessaging
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/
dnglobspec/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.  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)
A competing spec called WS-ReliableMessaging
(http://msdn.microsoft.com/webservices/default.aspx?pull=/library/en-us/
dnglobspec/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) 
	</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.