On 9/27/07, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

<snip>

> How about the following reordering:
> >
> > a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and
> > maintenance of open-source software that simplifies the development of
> > service oriented applications and provides a managed service-oriented
> > runtime, supporting a range of technologies and based on the standards
> > defined by the OASIS OpenCSA group, for distribution at no charge to the
> > public.
> >
> >   Simon
> >
>
> This looks good to me, I have a few comments and questions:
>
> In addition to the programming model aspects, covered by "simplifies the
> development of service oriented applications", how about adding
> something to cover the deployment, configuration and management models?
> Either add "service oriented networks" or at least change "development"
> to "development and deployment"?
>
> I'm not sure how "a range of technologies" further expands the scope of
> what we're doing, as the OpenCSA standards already span a range of
> technologies. Is it really necessary?
>
> Do people want to say something about things we're doing that are not
> covered by OpenCSA, the data access service work, the data binding work,
> and the SCA implementation and binding extensions that are not covered
> by OpenCSA? Are they all covered by the "based on the standards defined
> by OpenCSA" statement since they are related to either SCA or SDO?



Ok, adding "deployment" and removing "a range of technologies" gives:

a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and
maintenance of open-source software that simplifies the development
and deployment of service oriented applications and provides a managed
service-oriented runtime based on the standards defined by the OASIS
OpenCSA group, for distribution at no charge to the public.

I wasn't sure where "service oriented networks" should go? And i haven't
found a way to mention things we're doing that are not covered by OpenCSA
and still keep it reasonably concise and sounding ok -  can anyone else?

   ...ant

Reply via email to