W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > July 2002

RE: D-AC005 CSFs

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:15:30 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E403A8F6C1@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
> Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12:33 AM
> To: 'Christopher B Ferris'; 'Champion, Mike'
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: D-AC005 CSFs
> 
 
> In particular, 5.1 is quite ... odd. 

> So ironically, we need to create specialized jargon so that 
> we can clearly talk about our problem area.  
> A new area of reasoning requires a new
> language, which equals specialized jargon.

+1 As the guilty party here (at least I was the original champion
of the simplicity goal/CSF) I completely agree!  

I agree this should be removed from the requirements, but just
to defend myself :~) .... I think I was trying to get at the 
idea that an ordinary architect / specwriter / etc. shouldn't
have to look too  far outside a) the spec itself and b) his or her
professional education and experience to understand the terminology.  
That is not always the case in W3C specs, IMHO -- working groups
sometimes get wrapped up in their own worlds and words and forget
that outsiders don't understand them.  

One example [please, I'm admitting my naivete, not starting a flame war!]
is "ontology."  I wasn't familiar with the sense in which that word
had come to be used in  the AI community over the last decade or
so, and when XML-ers starting talking their "ontologies" I was baffled, 
and rather annoyed.  I had been familiar with the way the term is used in
philosophy (fundamental assumptions about existence) rather than its current
sense (formal specification of a conceptualization).  

So, no formal requirement, but maybe a suggestion to the editors that we
need to make VERY sure that our glossary is complete, agreed upon, and
understandable by the target audience.  In fact, after talking with Dave O.
about this the other day, it dawned on me that the Glossary is a *big* part
of what we are delivering, because we are (hopefully) going to propose a set
of consistent and useful definitions of terms such as "orchestration" that
are not understood in a common way.  [Hmm, another example of a word that
would totally baffle the non-initiated, especially music lovers!]
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 09:16:09 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:03 GMT