Re: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]

[Sean Fitts <sean@crossweave.com>]

Dan, thanks, that clarifies things for me.  I agree that it is important to 
know
the reason for each of these requirements.  In this case, I would point to the
first F2F where one of the key issues we discussed was market adoption of
WSIA.  I'd have to go back to the minutes, but I believe that we agreed 
that it
was important that WSIA be constructed in a way that allows for rapid 
adoption.
This requirement (along with a couple of others) help to support that goal.

Sean

At 12:10 PM 5/9/2002 -0400, Dan Gisolfi wrote:
>Sean,
>Let me clarify.
>a) my point about "articulating the need" pertains to - why did this
>requirement show up on the list? who was the original source? What was the
>original scenario? Who made the inital motion?
>
>We have all espressed our opinions but I was trying (not well stated as you
>pointed out)  to determine how to get to the root issue (prior WSIA work)
>that triggered the requirement.
>
>b) As for my position, I am operating under a premise that any WSIA service
>will be able to extend any WSDL compliant Web Service. With this premise in
>mind, I do not see a need to call out or correlate the linkage between WSIA
>applications and legacy applications. Since, WSIA applications can consist
>of an aggregation of any number of  software services (including legacy
>components). Maybe a key hang-up on my end is the definition of a legacy
>application. Although such an application may have a tighly coupled
>presentation/interactive layer today, in the WSIA world I see that legacy
>application to be decomposed into business and data services that can be
>augmented by WSIA applications and the legacy app developer may leave the
>presentation layer undefined --- alla Enterprise Services
>
>If I am the only one against the inclusion of the requirement for the sake
>of productivity I will yeild.
>
>Does anyone else beleive that this requirement shoul not be included?
>
>
>
>
>Dan Gisolfi
>
>
>Sean Fitts <sean@crossweave.com> on 05/09/2002 11:44:12 AM
>
>To:    Dan Gisolfi/Somers/IBM@IBMUS, wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
>cc:
>Subject:    Re: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
>
>
>
>
>Dan, I have to respectfully disagree with the statement that no one has
>articulated the reason for this requirement.  The reason, as articulated
>by Stefan and Greg (among others), is that given that most WSIA
>implementations will likely be based on existing applications and given
>the importance of making sure that WSIA will be widely adopted, it is
>important to make a specific statement that the WSIA group intends to
>make this possible.
>
>This may have little technical significance, but I think it is very
>important
>as a statement of intent.  There have been too many standards efforts
>which have ignored the current market realities and I don't any of us want
>WSIA to join that list.
>
>Now, you may disagree with this reason, but it has been articulated.
>Let's debate the reasons why you disagree.
>
>Personally, I don't think this goes far enough and I would like to see us
>outline specific scenarios that show a company taking its existing
>application assets and leveraging them as WSIA services.  If this isn't
>possible (and fairly easy), then it will hard for WSIA to be widely
>deployed.
>
>That said, I support the proposal to use the phrase "MUST NOT preclude"
>(in place of MUST enable) as a middle ground.
>
>Sean
>
>At 07:34 AM 5/9/2002 -0400, Dan Gisolfi wrote:
> >So far  (no wherei sthi sdebate) has someone articulated the reason for
> >this requirement. Where did it come from? My position is that we drop it.
> >Web Services technologies (namely SOAP and WSDL) will address integration
> >of legacy applications. WSIA will adress the description of how those
> >legacy (enterprise) services will be interated with..
> >
> >Dan Gisolfi
> >
> >
> >Rich Thompson/Watson/IBM@IBMUS on 05/08/2002 08:33:45 AM
> >
> >To:    wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> >cc:
> >Subject:    Re: AW: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Do we really expect the specification to do anything to enable this
> >wrapping of legacy applications? I think the intent to to not preclude
> >developers from interacting with any back end system they want to.
> >
> >
> >
> >                       "Beck, Stefan"
> >                       <stefan.beck@sap.        To:
> >                       wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> >                       com>                     cc:
> >                                                Subject:  AW:
> >                       [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
> >                       05/08/2002 03:28
> >                       AM
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >Whats about:
> >
> >The specification MUST enable Producers to provide existing legacy
> >applications and infrastructure as WSIA compliant Web Service.
> >
> >Stefan
> >
> >
> >-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
> >Von: Timothy N. Jones [mailto:tim@crossweave.com]
> >Gesendet: Montag, 6. Mai 2002 20:00
> >An: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> >Betreff: RE: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
> >
> >
> >
> >Is there a reason this shouldn't be a "must", i.e.:
> >
> >   The specification MUST not preclude Producers from providing the
> >capability to support legacy applications and infrastructure.
> >
> >As long as the protocol between Consumer and Producer is WSIA, it
>shouldn't
> >matter what else the producer is doing on the backend.
> >
> >Tim
> >
> > > Dan, I can see your perspective, but consider the consequences if we
> >produce
> > > a specification that prevents us from integrating with legacy
> >applications.
> > > Although we are in the domain of web services, the world will not
>become
> > > fully WSIA aware for several years, and many of the implementations
>will
> >be
> > > producers exposing existing applications.
> > > Without the ability to integrate the adoption rate will be low, which
> >will
> > > lead us down the path to obscurity.
> > > I support Eilon's reworded statement, though I'm not sure that
> > > 'infrastructure' adds anything to the requirement.
> > > Regards
> > > Greg
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Dan Gisolfi [mailto:gisolfi@us.ibm.com]
> > > Sent: Monday, May 06, 2002 4:32 AM
> > > To: wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > Subject: Re: [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
> > > As we are dealing with the domain of Web Services, an assumption should
> >be
> > > made that the spec should pertain to any Web Service. Therefore, I see
>no
> > > need for the spec to specifically call out legacy applications and
> > > infrastructure. The spec will pertain to any software component that
>can
> >be
> > > described using a Web Services facade.
> > > Therefore I do not see a need for this requirement. I motion for
> >deletion.
> > > Dan Gisolfi
> > > To:    wsia@lists.oasis-open.org
> > > cc:
> > > Subject:    [wsia][wsia-requirements][E922]
> > >  E922
> > > Producers SHOULD provide the capability to  support legacy applications
> >and
> > > infrastructure. Debate: GG, ER, DG, SB,  TJ.
> > > This seems  to be a requirement from a tool and not necessarily from
>the
> > > specification.
> > > Try:
> > > The  specification should not preclude Producers from providing the
> > > capability to  support legacy applications and  infrastructure.
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> > > ----------------------------------------------------------------
> > > To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> > > manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
> >
> >
> >
> >----------------------------------------------------------------
> >To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> >manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
>
>
>----------------------------------------------------------------
>To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
>manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>