W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws@w3.org > August 2008

Re: Updated WS-Resource Interactions WG charter

From: Jeff Mischkinsky <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2008 11:53:00 -0700
Cc: member-ws@w3.org, www-ws@w3.org
Message-Id: <851B0F55-BE0F-48DE-92D5-2EDC5BA0CDCD@oracle.com>
To: "Natale, Bob" <RNATALE@mitre.org>

hi bob,

On Aug 13, 2008, at 7:51 PM, Natale, Bob wrote:

> Hi Jeff,
> Please change "The DMTF is the industry organization leading..." to
> "The DMTF is an industry organization focused on...", or something
> equivalent.

sure,, no problem. (The description was cribbed from the dmtf's  

> Rationale: A goodly number of industry organizations other than the
> DMTF -- e.g., the TM Forum, the IETF, ATIS, ITU-T, and others -- also
> work on "the development, adoption and promotion of interoperable
> management initiatives and standards".  In many management domains --
> e.g., management processes, applications -- the DMTF is not a  
> "leading"
> organization.  In some domains -- e.g., management information and  
> data
> models -- the DMTF contribution(s) -- e.g., the CIM -- is one of
> several similar contributions -- e.g., the TM Forum SID and IETF (SMI)
> MIBs -- required for a complete management solution.
> I also question the need to mention WS-Management (to the exclusion of
> OASIS WSDM and WS-Notification).

   The OASIS WS-Notification and WSDM TCs are closed, having completed  
their work. Are you suggesting that nevertheless they be added to the  
sentence in the OASIS description that starts out with "Relevant  
Technical Committees include but are not limited to: <list of some TCs>?
   (I'm fine with doing that.)

  Can you suggest some other words or would that be suitable?


> I trust it's clear from the rationale offered that these comments are
> not meant to "bash" any organization or standardization effort...just
> looking for a level playing field in the wording and recognition that
> it's a big world out there in terms of what it takes to enable
> management for large-scale complex production networks.
> Cheers,
> BobN
> -----Original Message-----
> From: member-ws-request@w3.org [mailto:member-ws-request@w3.org] On
> Behalf Of Jeff Mischkinsky
> Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2008 5:42 PM
> To: member-ws@w3.org; www-ws@w3.org
> Subject: Updated WS-Resource Interactions WG charter
> hi,
>   After reading and considering the various comments, suggestions, and
> feedback here's another stab at a draft charter which takes them, (as
> well as oracle's positions) into account and strikes what we hope is a
> reasonable compromise. We believe that a charter should specify a
> generally understood scope of work, but it should not be a detailed
> "requirements document" which essentially dictates a pre-determined
> outcome. (That's why the W3C invite a broad spectrum of industry
> experts to participate in its Working Groups.) I've recast the the
> scope to capture that essence. The details as to schedule, the final
> reference url's, etc. i've left to be fixed up once we have a better
> idea as to when the WG will actually start.
>  I've attached an updated version - dr20080812. I also created a diff
> with the previous version i posted here. It's probably not that  
> useful,
> since the scope section pretty much just shows as one big replacement,
> but some might find it helpful.
> cheers,
>   jeff

Jeff Mischkinsky			          		jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards	 
Consulting Member Technical Staff           			500 Oracle Parkway, M/S  
Oracle								Redwood Shores, CA 94065
Received on Thursday, 14 August 2008 18:54:24 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:22 UTC