- From: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 17:39:09 -0500
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Our models capture quite a lot of detail. Indeed, I'm concerned that they model too many concepts and appear overly complex. I believe our document will have greater impact if we present something simpler. To this goal, I'd like to propose that we either de-emphasize, consolidate or remove some of the concepts from our model diagrams, while still retaining the ideas in the explanatory text. (I'm not sure whether the ideas should also be retained as full-fledged concept definitions or merely included in explanatory text.) On today's editors' call, we brainstormed on some ways that we might simplify the model diagrams: 1. Remove concepts from the diagram that seem less central than others (but retain the ideas in the explanatory text). 2. Visually highlight certain concepts that we deem the most central, thus de-emphasizing the others. I'd like to hear other peoples thoughts on this. Are the model diagrams too complex? Should we remove or de-emphasize some of the concepts in them? If so, which ones? As a starting point, I will suggest the following. MESSAGE ORIENTED MODEL Remove/de-emphasize message correlation Remove/de-emphasize delivery policy Remove/de-emphasize message reliability SERVICE ORIENTED MODEL Remove/de-emphasize Goal State Remove/de-emphasize Action Remove/de-emphasize property Remove/de-emphasize choreography (or change to MEP?) RESOURCE ORIENTED MODEL (No changes suggested) POLICY MODEL Remove/de-emphasize Denial Remove/de-emphasize Controlled resource Remove/de-emphasize Permission guard Remove/de-emphasize permission Remove/de-emphasize Obligation Remove/de-emphasize Audit guard Remove/de-emphasize Remedy Remove/de-emphasize constraint Remove/de-emphasize Policy description Remove/de-emphasize domain I.e., reduce to: person or organization agent policy action MANAGEMENT MODEL I actually think we can omit this model and rely instead on the stakeholder section on Management, because there isn't anything in our WS architecture that is uniquely intended for management. I.e., WS management is achieved by *applying* the WS architecture to the requirements for management. I am not married to the above suggestions. I'm just throwing them out as possibilities. Also, I am NOT suggesting that we use the mailing list to try to *decide* which concepts to remove or de-emphasize. At this point, I think it is best to defer to the editors' judgement quite a lot on this, because we need to have a coherent set of concepts represented. Rather, my intent here is to gain input for the editors about what people think we should try to do in order to achieve a document with the greatest impact. -- David Booth W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 17:39:20 UTC