On 27/09/2007, Jean-Sebastien Delfino <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Simon Nash wrote: > > > > Paul Fremantle wrote: > > > >> +1 > >> > >> Paul > >> > >> On 9/27/07, Mike Edwards <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >> > >>> Folks, > >>> > >>> My pennyworth: > >>> > >>> > >>> a Project Management Committee charged with the creation and > >>> maintenance of open-source software supporting a range of technologies > >>> that simplifies the development 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. > >>> > > This captures the right points, but it feels to me that the insertion of > > the extra words up front makes this sentence a little cumbersome, and the > > plural/singular juxtaposition of "...a range of technologies that > > simplifies..." jars a little, though it is strictly correct > > grammatically. > > > > 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?
You are right, the "based on the standards defined by OpenCSA" is sufficient to cover SDO. > > >>> > >>> I think it worth pointing out that there will be support for a range of > >>> technologies - both implementation kinds and protocol kinds -hence the > >>> words I've added. > >>> > >>> > >>> Yours, Mike. > >>> > >>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- > >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > >>> > >>> > >> > -- > Jean-Sebastien > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
