W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2004

RE: Crossreferencing the spec list with Apache's

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 12:31:36 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E031328EB@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Michael Champion" <mc@xegesis.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I am not willing to take on the task of keeping that list a living
document.  That would be a LOT of work.  Consequently, I have been
pretty stubborn about saying, essentially, "That was a snapshot at a
particular time and even at that time it was imperfect.  Y'all had
plenty of chance to contribute."  In other words, at the time that I was
posting requests for input I was very receptive to this sort of thing,
now I am not.  Just me, personally.

Having said that, I think I might support putting a link to this list in
the Appendix, with some text like, "Another list of Web services
specifications may be found at ...".  I say, however, "think".  It makes
me nervous that this seems to be getting perilously close to "adding or
modifying content", which I think is a serious no-no at this point.  Are
we endorsing this list?  Does this list have aspects which are problems
-- would have been problems -- for any of the former members of the
former working group?

Actually, now that I have thought more about it, I regret to say that I
think putting in such a link is on the wrong side of the line, and that
drawing and maintaining that line is really important.  It's a shame we
didn't know about that link when we were writing the appendix -- but
frankly I think it's a shame that some other portions of the document
could not have been made better.  I am particularly unhappy about one
section that I feel a strong stake in and I think could very easily be
improved very substantially because there are two things being mixed
together that should be, and could easily be, made distinct -- but
that's just the way the cookie crumbles.

I think we just have to bite the bullet and resist all temptations to
mess with it at this point.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Michael Champion
Sent: Sunday, February 01, 2004 9:26 AM
To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org '
Subject: Crossreferencing the spec list with Apache's

I did a quick crosscheck between the list of specs now at  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Dec/0058.html and 
that at 

Anyway, the ones I find the the Apache list that aren't in ours include:

[WS-ActiveProfile]: The WS-Federation specification defines an 
integrated model for federating identity, authentication and 
authorization across different trust realms. This specification defines 
how the federation model is applied to active requestors such as SOAP 

[WS-Inspection]: is an XML format for assisting in the inspection of a 
site for available services.

[WS-PassiveProfile] describes how the cross trust realm identity, 
authentication and authorization federation mechanisms defined in 
WS-Federation can be utilized used by passive requestors such as Web 
browsers to provide Identity Services. Passive requesters of this 
profile are limited to the HTTP protocol.

[WS-EndpointResolution]: A set of Web service mechanisms that support 
selecting a specific endpoint for an operation or message from a set of 
allowed candidates. This is particularly useful in server farms and 
mobile environments.

[WS-Manageability]: introduces the general concepts of a manageability 
model in terms of manageability topics and the aspects used to define 

[WS-Privacy] : will describe a model for how Web services and 
requesters state privacy preferences and organizational privacy 
practice statements.

[WS-Referral]: is a SOAP-based, stateless protocol for inserting, 
deleting, and querying routing entries in a SOAP router.

OK, enough of this!  The bottom line is that even people who spend more 
or less full time trying to track this stuff can't keep up (ahem, which 
was the reason the W3C chartered WSA in the first place).   Maybe the 
best way forward is to link to the Apache list along with ours (in the 
Appendix?). Since that is a Wiki and presumably editable (and there is 
an owner one can ping for updates), perhaps someone might synch the 
Roger/Paul list to Apache's.  Whether someone here does it, someone 
seeing the Appendix with both our lists and the link to Apache's does 
it, or whatever,  is not important.

Thoughts on this, especially from Roger and Paul, would be appreciated. 
  I wouldn't object if someone updated our list and we asked David to 
link to the update, but I'm not sure if this would serve any useful 
purpose.  I do think we should revise Appendix A to add a link to 
along with our list, because ours will quickly be obsolete and that 
will presumably be maintained.
Received on Sunday, 1 February 2004 13:32:18 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:58 UTC