[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsdm] Specification Naming
+0.85 :-) I'm in agreement with Igor that we keep WSDM in the picture. It is too cute^H^H^H^Hclever a name to just drop <asHeDucks/> :-) MUWS $version -> WSDM: [General] Resource Manageability $version MOWS $version -> WSDM: Web Services Manageability $version With numbers (1.0) tossed in as appropriate ($version). We can, of course, spell out WSDM. Thus quoth Vambenepe, William N (~ 24-Feb-04 6:16 PM ~)... > I think a good naming could be: > > MUWS 1.0 -> "Web Services Management Framework: Resources Manageability 1.0" > MOWS 1.0 -> "Web Services Management Framework: Web Services > Manageability 1.0" > > It is good to reinforce the fact that MUWS is a framework that people > are invited to build on. Not just a spec to use as-is. > > William > > -----Original Message----- > *From:* Srinivas, Davanum M [mailto:Davanum.Srinivas@ca.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2004 11:30 AM > *To:* Heather Kreger; wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* RE: [wsdm] Specification Naming > > my 2 cents....How about the following? > > MUWS 1.0 -> "Web Services Management : Distributed > Resources Manageability 1.0" > MOWS 1.0 -> "Web Services Management : Web Services Manageability 1.0" > > -- dims > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Heather Kreger [mailto:kreger@us.ibm.com] > *Sent:* Tuesday, February 24, 2004 10:39 AM > *To:* wsdm@lists.oasis-open.org > *Subject:* [wsdm] Specification Naming > > Hello all, > <Chair Hat on> > Last week we had a long discussion on the names of our specifications. > I would like everyone who is not happy with the current naming to > email in their candidates and we'll spend a short time > on selecting one on our Thursday call. > > The reasoning for changing the name was that it is not clear to > those outside of or new to WSDM that the MOWS specification is an > application of the MUWS specification for the Web Service as an IT > resource. Winston and I have answered this question many times as well. > > Some felt that changing MUWS 1.0 to WSDM 1.0 made the title of the > specification less descriptive of its purpose, as WSDM could be > interepreted to mean MUWS or MOWS. It seems that other TCs don't > name their specifications the same as their working group names > (e.g. Security TC), so we do have some freedom here. > </Chair Hat on> > > <IBM Hat on> > Here a few that the IBMers liked: > > MUWS - keep it as "Management Using Web Services" > MOWS - change to "MUWS for Web Services" > > second place was - "MUWS - Web Services" > third place was - "MUWS - Web Services Manageability" (which may be > confusing with the submission by the same name) > </IBM Hat on> > > > Heather Kreger > STSM, Web Services Lead Architect for SWG Emerging Technologies > Author of "Java and JMX: Building Manageable Systems" > kreger@us.ibm.com > 919-543-3211 (t/l 441) cell:919-496-9572 > -- Fred Carter / AmberPoint, Inc. mailto:fred.carter@amberpoint.com tel:+1.510.433.6525 fax:+1.510.663.6301
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]