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

Re: Merge of WS-Arch Glossary with ebXML Glossary

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:27:07 +0100
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030204122707.GD25859@w3.org>

* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> [2003-02-03 14:10-0600]
> 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.

Thanks Roger.

It seems to me that the interesting part of comparing our glossary
with others is looking at the terms that are equivalent, similar or
common, and for which we have different names. I think that in this
case we should ask ourselves why the definitions would not be the

I think that your document will help us to achieve this.

My gut feeling is that we should stay away from adding lots of
definitions from all over the place that are missing in our document,
unless they are directly related to some text we have in one of our
other documents (requirements, architecture, usage scenarios) because
this will make it very difficult to have a consistent use of terms
across the Web Services Architecture document and the glossary, and
probably also internally, within the glossary.



Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 07:27:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:03 UTC