W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-archive@w3.org > November 2002

Re: Artifacts in Requesters -- Simple Conventions for Diagrams

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Sat, 9 Nov 2002 18:19:00 -0600
To: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: www-archive@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF22C05E5B.A24CB270-ON85256C6C.005782F0-85256C6D.00019B74@rchland.ibm.com>
Here's the complete set (except the ones that we're doing away with
eventually). See you at the f2f!

Cheers,

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



David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
11/06/2002 02:11 PM
Please respond to "David Booth"


To
Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS
cc
Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS, www-archive@w3.org
bcc

Subject
Re: Artifacts in Requesters -- Simple Conventions for Diagrams



Chris,

Sure, send me the PPT, and I'll take a crack at it.

At 09:05 PM 10/31/2002 -0500, Christopher B Ferris wrote:

>David,
>
>I did see this, but did not see any other commentary on the list. Not 
>being a ppt wizard, I
>chose to defer this change. I'm not saying that the suggestion is without 

>merit,
>just that I had a limited amount of bandwidth and chose to focus on 
>getting as
>many of the editorial comments as I could incorporated into the prose. We 
can
>always work on improving the graphics for the next round (volunteers? I 
>have the
>ppt sources).
>
>Cheers,
>
>Christopher Ferris
>Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
>email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
>phone: +1 508 234 3624
>
>
>David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
>
>10/31/2002 05:39 PM
>Please respond to "David Booth"
>
>To
>www-wsa-comments@w3.org
>cc
>Heather Kreger/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, Christopher B Ferris/Waltham/IBM@IBMUS
>bcc
>Subject
>Re: Artifacts in Requesters -- Simple Conventions for Diagrams
>
>
>
>Chris,
>
>Since I didn't see any response to the suggestion I made on Oct 21 to
>clarify the diagrams, (see
>http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0306.html ), I
>would like to reiterate that I think it's important to draw artifacts /
>documents differently from actors / agents / roles.  There's a big
>difference between an artifact and an actor (an artifact is a piece of
>data, whereas an actor is something that can perform actions), and that
>difference is muddied if they look similar in the diagrams.  In 
particular,
>the diagrams currently use ovals for both a "Service" (which is an actor 
/
>agent / role, depending on your terminology), and a "Service Description"
>(which is an artifact / document, depending on your terminology).
>
>This isn't a show stopper if there isn't time to fix it right now, but I
>think it is important to fix when possible.  There is more explanation 
at:
>http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/10/diagram_conventions_clean.htm
>
>Thanks
>
>--
>David Booth
>W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>Telephone: +1.617.253.1273

-- 
David Booth
W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
Telephone: +1.617.253.1273




Received on Saturday, 9 November 2002 19:20:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Wednesday, 7 November 2012 14:17:24 GMT