W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > February 2003

RE: Merge of WS-Arch Glossary with ebXML Glossary

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:12:41 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E0162498C@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
cc: hugo@w3.org
Dummy me.  Here's a 45 Kby ZIP file.

Sorry.

 <<WD-ws-gloss-20021114 - RTC.zip>> 

>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)  
> Sent:	Monday, February 03, 2003 2:11 PM
> To:	'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
> Cc:	'hugo@w3.org'
> Subject:	FW: Merge of WS-Arch Glossary with ebXML Glossary
> 
> The following note was sent prior to another note that has already hit
> the public email group.  It contained, however, an attachment that is
> over 400 Kby.  Is this not possible or very rude?  Is there something
> else I can do with this?  [WATCH OUT!!!  Don't say it! ...]
> 
>  -----Original Message-----
> From: 	Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)  
> Sent:	Monday, February 03, 2003 12:27 PM
> To:	www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Cc:	'Hugo Haas'
> Subject:	Merge of WS-Arch Glossary with ebXML Glossary
> 
> 
> 
> Attached is an attempt to merge parts of the ebXML draft glossary into
> ours.  I have tried to include terms that are the same as those we
> have defined plus some (many) that I think may be related.  I probably
> went way too far including terms starting with "Business ...", but I
> figured they are the experts on these and we can pick what we like.  I
> left out anything that seemed to me specific to ebXML, UML or OOP --
> all of which seem to me peripheral to WS-Arch.
> 
> Note that the ebXML glossary is DRAFT.  I neglected to mention that in
> the "Status" section I modified.
> 
> Mechanically it was done by cutting and pasting from Word into the
> current HTML document (not the XML version, of course).  I'm sure the
> result was some really horrible HTML.  The intention is not to develop
> the document itself but to provide a useful analysis tool.  I have
> not, however, attempted any analysis other than the selection of
> terms.  In some cases the definitions seem similar, in others they are
> wildly different.  Sometimes I think that the difference is OK -- just
> a matter of different contexts -- in other cases it doesn't look so OK
> to me.
> 
> Here is an explanation of some of the contents of the last column
> (source).  I don't know what RUP means.
> 
> The revision includes definitions from:
> 	ebXML Glossary, Version 0.99
> 	UN/CEFACT' s Modelling Methodology N090R10 (Referred to as UMM
> in the Glossary), Modelling Methodology Glossary
> 	UN/CEFACT - ebXML Core Components Technical Specification, Part
> 1, Version 1.85 (Referred to as CCTS 1.90 in the Glossary)
> 	OASIS Collaboration-Protocol Profile and Agreement
> Specification, Version 2.0 (Referred to as CPPA 2.0 in the Glossary)
> 	UN/CEFACT - ebXML Business Process Specification Schema, Version
> 1.05 (Referred to as BPSS 1.05 in the Glossary)
> 	UN/CEFACT - ebXML Architecture Technical Specification Version
> 0.58 (Referred to as UEBA 0.58 in the Glossary)
> -     ISO-IEC-ITU-UN/ECE Memorandum of Understanding on
> ElectronicBusiness
> 



Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 15:13:05 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:14 GMT