MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
emergency message
[Date Prev]
| [Thread Prev]
| [Thread Next]
| [Date Next]
--
[Date Index]
| [Thread Index]
| [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] PPW letter re CAP
Carl -
We aren't talking about something that needs to cause a delay... this
could be resolved very quickly by adding a single optional element to
the spec, with requisite caveats and restrictions set forth in its
definition. The mechanism involved has already been tested and
proven in a number of XML applications, and implementation could even
be defined as optional for most implementers (those not contemplating
connections via one-way data links).
And I should remind us all that we aren't talking about an
enhancement here... we're only talking about meeting our own stated
requirements.
This is a question of balancing the real, explicitly stated needs of
a significant stakeholder community against speculative hazards...
hazards that generally haven't materialized in other applications of
the same method, and ones that in any event are easily mitigated with
a few lines of specification text.
Regardless of how we might spin it, if we don't provide a solution
that responds to users' stated needs I'm hearing from PPW member
companies and others that market forces will require them to stop
waiting for CAP and devise their own solutions in the very near
future. That would be a profoundly regrettable failure of the
standards process, especially since it's so easily avoidable.
- Art
At 2:59 PM -0600 10/8/03, Carl Reed wrote:
>Art -
>
>We run into these issues all the time in our specification process at the
>OGC. It is impossible to satisfy every requirement for every application in
>every industry. There is an interesting balance between getting a spec out
>for use and getting one out that is also useful! I think the old 80/20 rule
>applies.
>
>Anyway, perhaps a more positive way to position the CAP spec is to say that
>this is version 1 (one) and that future (new) requirements and change
>proposals will be considered and incorporated. This is the way we deal with
>the enhancement issue at the OGC. We accept change proposals, instantiate a
>spec Revision Working Group, work the suggested changes, and then put the
>modified spec up for member vote and adoption. Some of our specs have
>already gone through 5 or 6 revisions in 2 years. This does raise an issue
>of backwards compatibility and deprecation. But how is this different from
>any vibrant piece of technologies life cycle management?
>
>Cheers
>
>Carl
>
>