Title: Message
Eilon,
great update, thanks. Your note about ownership of the common 'base'
concerns me, since with such passionate groups of people involved it may be
difficult to resolve. With that in mind I thought it would be useful to explore
some less attractive options beyond the obvious, so that any negotiations don't
simply end in stalemate. Here are a couple that jumped out at
me:
- set
up a third committee that has ownership of the 'base'
services
--
pros
---
clear ownership, agenda and scope
--
cons
---
dependency will slow down other efforts
- have a core set of people spanning both committees and having the
base divided between them, each dual member would lead a team within a single
committee to deliver
--
pros
---
everyone feels heard
---
good cross-pollination of concepts
--
cons
---
assumes a rigorous execution process
---
heavy time commitment
Regards
Greg
-----Original Message-----
From: Eilon Reshef
[mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, March 12, 2002
9:14 PM
To: ;
Subject: [wsia]
Questions around Relationship between WSIA and WSRP
Hi Everybody,
Since the initial meeting of the OASIS WSRP committee
is next week, I wanted to bring up to discussion the relationship between the
WSIA committee and the WSRP committee. Naturally, this will be part of the
discussions next week and since there is a significant overlap between the
individuals attending both committees, this will probably be an interesting
discussion. Yet, I thought it might help to bring up some the questions ahead
of time, so that by the time we all meet we will have had some time
to come up with an opinion.
The stated goals of the two committees
are:
WSIA. Create an XML and web services
centric framework for interactive web applications. The designs must achieve
two main goals: enable businesses to distribute web applications through
multiple revenue channels, and enable new services or applications to be
created by leveraging existing applications across the Web.
WSRP. Create an XML and web services
standard that will allow for the 'plug-n-play' of: portals, other intermediary
web applications that aggregate content, and applications from disparate
sources. These so-called Remote Portlet Web services will be designed to
enable businesses to provide content or applications in a form that does not
require any manual content or application-specific adaptation by consuming
applications.
Clearly, in both cases the goal is to facilitate
integration of interactive applications (or: components) into new contexts. In
WSIA, the "Consumer" applications are generic, whereas in WSRP, they are
specifically portal applications.
Based on the preliminary work in both committees,
there's a set of base services common to both cases, which handles the
fundamental questions of how are interactive applications represented and
integrated.
+----------+
+
Base +
+----------+
And then some application-specific
interfaces/protocols, which deal with portal integration (e.g., admin screens
and user management) and non-portal integration (customization, commerce
integration, etc.).
+-------------+ +-----------------+
+ Portals
+ + Non-portals +
+-------------+
+-----------------+
Naturally, we will have to decide - between the two
committees - which one handles the "base" services. These are naturally issues
around the basic request model (actual API and flow), URL rewriting,
instantiation, etc.
It would seem that WSRP will evolve from this into
portal-specific questions and WSIA will evolve into tighter integration
scenarios.
There are pros and cons to having each committee
handle the base services:
- WSRP is a more advanced in terms of actual
protocols for base services. (But, naturally, those protocols may not less
adequate for the general case)
- WSIA has a wider view of the requirements.
(But, naturally, may require some more time to
converge).
Again, since there's a
large overlap between the two committees, this is more of a procedural issue
than it is of a real issue, but I thought it might be worth pointing out
before the meeting.
Looking forward to see you
on Monday,
Eilon
PS: Sorry if this message
gets to you twice - I posted it to both
committees.
