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

RE: Artifacts

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 10 Oct 2002 20:32:06 -0700
To: "'Cutler, Roger \(RogerCutler\)'" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <005101c270d6$c6bccf10$620ba8c0@beasys.com>
ArtifactsRoger,

The term artifact has been used in software for quite some time.

Cheers,
Dave
  -----Original Message-----
  From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
Behalf Of Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
  Sent: Thursday, October 10, 2002 6:35 PM
  To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
  Subject: Artifacts


  I would like to propose the following glossary entry:

  Artifact - 1) A remnant of something that is dead and gone, as in "The
shard of pottery found in the Yucatan was an artifact of the high Mayan
civilization"; 2) A defect or error in something otherwise regular and
useful, as in "Sixty cycle interference is a common artifact in monitors
sited too close to power sources".

  Perhaps you can add other meanings for the word?  I think you should if
you are going to insist on using it.

  Listening to how you folks are using the word artifact, I hear it meaning
different things at different times.  The most common meaning that I infer,
however, is that it refers to a piece of information which is emitted by
some actor in the drama under consideration and potentially consumed by
another actor.  Uh, isn't that what I would call a message?  I have this
weird feeling that there is an extreme shyness about using the word message,
as if some other discipline has dibs on it.  Well, I think that the
archeologists more or less have dibs on artifact, and I would really like to
hear words that I understand more clearly in the context that you are using
them.

  Best Wishes --

  Roger (a.k.a. Andy Rooney, curmudgeon).
Received on Thursday, 10 October 2002 23:36:19 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT