RE: Suggested simplifications to Simplicity Requirements

I agree with you that defining simple to understand is a difficult goal,
but would be nice. I'm not sure unambiguous completely covers it though.
For instance, WSDL 1.1 is pretty non-simple because it breaks out
messages, portTypes, bindings, ports, etc into separate sections of the
document. Is there any kind of "I know it when I see it" criteria we
could use for this?

As for DR014 - using existing XML technologies is different than
compatible with the existing Web infrastructure. For instance, we should
use URIs whenever possible. That isn't exactly an XML concept (although
XML certainly uses URIs.) My fear with this one is that it is clear from
the various REST debates in the protocol WG that what this means is very
open to a wide number of meanings. It would be nice to have a clear
definition of what this means as well.

-----Original Message-----
From: Stumbo, William K [mailto:WStumbo@crt.xerox.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, March 06, 2002 9:25 PM
To: 'David Booth'; www-ws-desc@w3.org
Cc: Stumbo, William K
Subject: RE: Suggested simplifications to Simplicity Requirements

DR013 -- The WG Specifications must be simple to understand and
implement
correctly.

How exactly does one define 'simple to understand'?  While I support the
intent of this requirement 'simple to understand' is a hard notion to
measure against.  When do we declare success and move on?  Can the
requirement be restated:  The WG Specification must be unambiguous [I
suspect there are a couple other adjectives we might want to use here]
and
correctly implementable.

DR014 -- The WG Specifications must be compatible with existing Web
Infrastructure.

Can this requirement be combined with DR003?  DR003 -- Use available XML
technologies when possible.

DR017, DR018, DR102, and DR104 -- I agree with rejecting them.  They all
seem like design goals.  We might want to store them somewhere and as we
move forward on the design pull them out on occasion and review them
along
with the evolving specification.  It might be a good litmus test, seeing
how
we're doing against a set of goals.


Bill Stumbo   
Xerox Research & Technology
Solutions & Services Technology Center

wstumbo@crt.xerox.com
    Phone:	585.422.0616
    Fax:	585.265.8424


> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Booth [mailto:dbooth@w3.org]
> Sent: Saturday, March 02, 2002 1:24 PM
> To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
> Subject: Suggested simplifications to Simplicity Requirements
> 
> 
> (Resending to public list)
> 
> Per my action item, attached are my suggested simplifications to the
> Simplicity Requirements.
> 
> Regards,
> David Booth
>   
>

Received on Thursday, 7 March 2002 00:43:16 UTC