W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-wsa-refact@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Syncing the architecture document and the glossary

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 10:58:06 -0500
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: public-wsa-refact@w3.org, public-wsa-refact-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OFA74D8C41.53B7D34B-ON85256CFB.0055342E-85256CFB.0057B6BF@us.ibm.com>

A couple of points to consider going forward.

I think we should be fairly deliberate in proceeding to synchronize the 
two documents.
We might consider that the architecture document be the normative source 
for definitions
that could be slurped out into the glossary using some form of stylesheet. 
 That way, we
don't have to worry about future synchronization issues.

Secondly, where we have a discrepancy, I think that we should be carefully 
which of the two we like best rather than just picking one document's 
definition over the other
for all cases.

My $0.02.


Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

public-wsa-refact-request@w3.org wrote on 04/01/2003 10:08:40 AM:

> While performing a few pending edits in the glossary, I realized /
> remembered that the glossary is fairly out of sync with the new
> architecture document and that it should probably be fixed before we
> publish everything.
> I don't envision to have the two documents completely in sync before
> republication, but at least to have the glossary hold the definitions
> found in the architecture document, i.e. step 1 below.
> What I had in mind was to do the following:
> 1. Add new terms defined in section 4 to the glossary.
> 2. Report descrepencies between existing definitions.
> 3. Consider the fate of terms that are in the glossary and not in the
>    architecture document, and that are somewhat equivalent or redundant,
>    e.g. client. The different options are:
>    - add to the architecture document.
>    - keep in the glossary only.
>    - delete the term from the glossary.
> First, does that sound like a good way forward?
> Second, in order to avoid doing the work twice, when do you think that
> section 4 will be stable enough for me to do this?
> Step 1 is fairly mechanical and is the one I'd like to do before
> publication. Step 2 and 3 will require more work and will take quite a
> while to accomplish.
> Regards,
> Hugo
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 1 April 2003 10:58:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 19:35:33 UTC