- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 12:27:02 -0600
- To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
It's funny, but I think I'm in almost the exact opposite mindset. It seems to me that we gave up long ago on the very strict, "whatsit diagram" approach (I can never remember that name, possibly because I don't really like them very much), and that a lot of the essential content of the architecture is by nature fairly soft. I'm willing to go with that as a strength, not an embarrassment. That is, by accepting a certain fuzziness we can expand the scope and potential impact of the architecture. I hope. For reasons like that I am very positive about things that point toward some potential but are perhaps not as rigidly defined as some might like. It seems to me at this point that the more exactly we define things the more likely we are to be wrong, because we are just not smart enough to think through all the ramifications in detail. Or maybe it's not a reasonable expectation at all. So I'm more interested in vision or potential than in last-minute attempts to "get it right" -- which I think from a narrow point of view are doomed to failure. I want to push where I think we can succeed. However, like Mike, I'm also MOST certainly not in the frame of mind that involves pushing this point of view real, real hard. I just throw it into the pot for what it is worth. Another possibility, incidentally, is that Mike and I are not as far apart on this as it might seem. The indication for this is that I sustpect that when applying our "mindsets" in specific situations our specific results are not going to differ all that much. So maybe we're talking about different cuts through minds, in a sort of tomographic sense. -----Original Message----- From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Champion, Mike Sent: Wednesday, January 14, 2004 11:39 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: updated service model ... I'm currently in the mindset of wanting to remove anything that doesn't have a very compelling definition, and thost concepts that don't have any *compelling* need to be there. Again, I'd rather leave them in than argue, but am waiting for others to give their opinion.
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 13:28:47 UTC