RE: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web Services Glossary )

Well, the suggestion was NOT to put anything in the glossary for this
term and to use the verbiage below as a response to the issue.

I'm not sure if we have anything explicit in the requirements about
supporting late binding, but it seems to me that a number of people on
the WG consider this important and that this was the sense of the
statement in the charter.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas [mailto:[email protected]] 
Sent: Wednesday, February 26, 2003 9:34 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: David Booth; [email protected]
Subject: Re: A Priori Information (Was Snapshot of Web Services Glossary
)


* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <[email protected]>
[2003-02-24 10:41-0600]
> OK, we've kicked this term around enough so that it seems pretty clear

> that it is not going to be a quick kill to get consensus on a general 
> definition, and I think David is absolutely correct: we need to 
> address the issue itself, but not necessarily this term as a general 
> concept.
> 
> So I suggest something along the following resolution to resolve the
> issue:
> 
> "The WG is not currently using the term "a priori information" in the 
> reference architecture, so we do not feel a need to come to an 
> agreement about the meaning of the term in general.  In the specific 
> context in which it is used in the group charter, we understand it to 
> mean "prior information".  We interpret this as a requirement that the

> architecture support late binding."

I am happy to put such a statement in the glossary. However, I think
that we should add something (or a placeholder) in the WSA to talk about
it. Maybe just to say what you are saying here.

However, I was wondering if we had actually a requirement about this
before saying "We interpret this as a requirement that the architecture
support late binding."

AC004 and AR004.2 read[1]:

|   AC004
|          does not preclude any programming model.
|          
|          + AR004.2 is comprised of loosely-coupled components and
their
|            interrelationships.

I think that this is the one that has been discussed when there were
late binding discussions, but I don't think that it explicitely calls
out for it. Maybe we are missing a requirement then.

Or have I missed something in the requirements document?

Regards,

Hugo

  1. http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/WD-wsa-reqs-20021114#AC004
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:[email protected] - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/