OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help



   RE: [xml-dev] WSIO- With Name

[ Lists Home | Date Index | Thread Index ]

Anyone can make their own club with a charter and 
founding members.  It's a free country.   So no, I have 
no more objections to this than to the skunk works efforts 
where the original authors of XML 1.0 go off and create 
their own profiles.  Same game; different scale.

I note that the WSIO papers thus far don't mention XML Schema as one of the vital 
web service standards although I thought they would.  Since co-occurrence contraints 
either are in the schema or have to be in the business logic, that would also affect 
the web service capabilities with regards to which specs are in the profiles.  Profiles 
sound like a good idea until you acutally write them and discover how QOS is affected 
by the profile itself.  They have some serious work and they are just as likely 
to get caught in the mire unless they already have an answer and this org is one 
designed to promote a fait accompli.  Again, no objections on technical grounds; just 

Did anyone get a chance to look at Tim Bray' et al's Skunk Work paper on XML over the 
weekend?   It seems to me that of all the current threads, this one has the most 
impact on every other topic.   That is, if we really want a layered architecture, 
some options in the schema space, etc., a slimmed down XML 1.0 profile that 
takes out DTDs so they can be moved to another layer is the right place to 
start.  I'm not as happy that namespaces are there but am willing to entertain 
arguments otherwise.    Can namespaces and alternatives such as John 
Cowan's reworking of Archtectural Forms work together?  It seems they can 
but for what functionalities?

In other words, will a slimmed down XML 1.0 compliant profile eliminate 
options such as Archtectural Forms by insisting that namespaces are more 
core than DTDs?  I can see that from the point of view of disambiguation 
but not from semantic associations.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Champion [mailto:mc@xegesis.org]

2/11/2002 9:15:41 AM, "Bullard, Claude L (Len)" <clbullar@ingr.com> wrote:

>This is a push to get to production with "good enough" specs 
>and tech.

Does this seem like a problem to you?  Whatever one thinks about the 
current Web Services hype vis a vis what we think we've learned about the 
web architecture, and whatever one thinks about "good is best" vs "best is 
best", what options do the WS-I participants have other than working 
together in something like the WS-I? All they're doing (according to the 
interview) is define profiles of the various specs (at least Lewin doesn't 
call them "standards") that people want to actually use, build best 
practices guidelines for using them in an interoperable way, and build 
test suites. 

The alternative of waiting for the "real" standards bodies (or 
theorists/researchers) to do this is simply not an option that one could 
advocate and keep one's job, I would guess.  Hype is a cruel master, and 
it is applying the whip and saying "row faster." Most of us here know that 
the SOAP bubble is inflating faster than the reality behind it. If the Web 
Services advocates pursue the vision (theoretically flawed though it may 
be) in a coordinated way, at least we will KNOW what when wrong when the 
bubble bursts.  If they do it willy-nilly in a quasi-proprietary way, we 
won't know (in a few years) if the bubble burst because the idea was 
doomed or because the execution was shoddy. 

Somewhat more optimistically, the Web Services vision has a better chance 
of becoming a near-term reality with coordination being done by an 
organization with a totally pragmatic charter rather than one of defining 
long-term standards or "leading the web to its full potential." It's quite 
possible that necessary adjustments to the vision (such as deprecating RPC 
and using more scalable and robust message exchange patterns) can be done 
without throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but this requires a 
process with much tighter feedback loops than the W3C or ISO has these 

The Web needs a) short-run pragmatic coordination among fierce rivals; b) 
longer-term architectural planning and integration; and c) Rigorous 
standardization of the technologies that prove their value.  Perhaps in 
the SGML era, the ISO did all three.  The W3C evolved to fill role a) in 
its early years, then matured to focus on b).  That leaves role a) 
unfilled, and the WS-I was invented to fill it.  Of  course, people who 
want to avoid the chaos of living in Internet Time should stay away from 
the WS-I until it produces something, and support "real" standards efforts 
from in a revitalized ISO activity and/or maturing W3C activities.


News | XML in Industry | Calendar | XML Registry
Marketplace | Resources | MyXML.org | Sponsors | Privacy Statement

Copyright 2001 XML.org. This site is hosted by OASIS