W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements

Pretty quiet on the list and some modest progress during the
teleconference. Please find attached an updated requirements draft that
accepts 3 requirements and rejects 7. (No new requirements!)

Feedback welcome.

--Jeff

P.S. If the HTML attachment is stripped, you can retrieve it from the
discussion list archive at
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-desc/>.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Schlimmer 
Sent: Monday, March 04, 2002 8:46 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements


Less input this week, but the WG made modest progress during the
teleconference. Please find attached an updated requirements draft that
accepts 5 requirements, rejects 6, and adds reworded DR109. It also
marks a proposal to simplify requirements in Section 3.2, and it adds
DR110 for a newly submitted requirement.

Feedback welcome.

--Jeff

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Schlimmer 
Sent: Monday, February 25, 2002 3:47 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: RE: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements


Thank you again for your continued input. Please find attached an
updated requirements draft with several changes.

First, this draft notes that 5 MUST requirements have been accepted by
the working group; some of these have simplified and/or clarified
wording.

Second, this draft marks 4 requirements as duplicates of others and thus
not (separate) requirements.

Finally, this draft includes 7 new requirements from the community. Note
that for the sake of process, I made a guess at the priority of these
requirements.

Thanks again for your input.

--Jeff 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Schlimmer 
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2002 8:20 PM
To: www-ws-desc@w3.org
Subject: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements


Thank you all for your additional requirements, early feedback, and
clarification for the W3C Web Service Description Working Group (WG).
Please find attached an updated requirements draft with several changes.

First, it includes 17 new requirements. If you have any additional
requirements, the WG will be pleased to consider them on a case-by-case
basis.

Second, for the sake of process, I made an educated guess at the
priority of each requirement. Borrowing from RFC 2119, MUST requirements
are the highest priority, MAY are low, and SHOULD are somewhere in
between. (See the updated draft for specific language.) The WG will
begin discussing this prioritization at our next meeting. You'll note
that no requirement is yet marked MAY, though I expect that will change
soon. Your feedback on the relative priority of the requirements is most
welcome.

Thank you again for your input. I look forward to working with you all
to come up with a clear, focused requirements document that provides a
great foundation for the WG effort.

--Jeff