W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-desc@w3.org > May 2002

Random thoughts on the Abstract Model Task Force (AMTF)

From: Krishna Sankar <ksankar@cisco.com>
Date: Sat, 11 May 2002 11:22:30 -0700
To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001d01c1f918$d244cc60$0c8b273f@amer.cisco.com>
Hi all,

	Since our meeting last week, I have been thinking about the
Abstract Model Task Force and what does it mean for the progression (&
evolution) of the WSDL specs. Here is the summary of the sum of all my
thoughts on this subject:

1.	Abstract Model

	IMHO, we need an abstract model to capture the heart and soul of
WS D3 - Definition, Description and Discovery. The abstract model can be
in the primer as a non-normative section (of course the whole primer is
non-normative anyway) or may be in the core specs as an appendix.

	I think the AM would be more useful in the 2.0 realm as a
reference model and guiding principle. Naturally it would evolve as we
progress into the architectural aspects of WS D3.

	As Sanjeeva pointed out, the AM should not be another 30 page
description of the description language of the Web Services ! That would
defeat the purpose of an AM. UML is a good choice to express the AM.
This does not mean one requires a deep experience in UML to create and
understand the AM. We wouldn't be using all the nuances and primitives
of UML, as we ourselves are a description language. The AM will be
simpler in terms of UML - in fact most possibly we would use a
combination of UML and text.

	Now coming to the timing (well, at least it rhymes well !),
IMHO, it is not a good practice to declare a do-or-die-by-the-June-f2f
for the AM. The major reason being, many folks do not have the bandwidth
now, but might be able to contribute in the next month or so. Also the
next two weeks are very difficult in terms of productivity - vacations,
long weekend, XML 2002,...

2.	1.2-by-issues-patchwork-to-1.1

	I think we still need to do the issues patchwork irrespective of
the AM and thus is not a substitute for AM or vice versa. I am of the
opinion that we have identified *most* of the issues for a 1.1 - 1.2
*transition*. May be we should have two buckets - fix now (1.2) and fix
later (2.0). Let us discuss issues quickly and put them into the
respective buckets. We will dig deeper into the 1.2 issues and will be
silent on the 2.0 issues till after the 1.2 is done. If, we as a team,
have that discipline, I think we can achieve our goals. Remember, the
earlier we get to 1.2, the faster we could start working on 2.0 !

Cheers & have a nice weekend
Received on Saturday, 11 May 2002 14:23:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:06:23 UTC