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

Re: Syncing the architecture document and the glossary

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 1 Apr 2003 08:53:23 -0800
Cc: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>, public-wsa-refact@w3.org, public-wsa-refact-request@w3.org
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Message-Id: <7385B6DE-6462-11D7-9E44-000393A3327C@fla.fujitsu.com>

+1

However, calling out some of the discrepancies can't harm (much)
Frank



On Tuesday, April 1, 2003, at 07:58  AM, Christopher B Ferris wrote:

>
> Hugo,
>
> 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 considering
> which of the two we like best rather than just picking one document's 
> definition over the other
> for all cases.
>
> My $0.02.
>
> Cheers,
>
> 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 11:53:53 EST

This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Monday, 22 September 2003 06:10:36 EDT