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

Re: WS-Arch Glossary Organization

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 13:41:54 +0100
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030204124154.GE25859@w3.org>

* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> [2003-02-03 13:27-0600]
> It seems to me that the separation of the glossary into functional
> sections (Architecture, General, Roles, etc) has some problems of
> consistency.   Some terms might apply to more than one section.  And,
> conversely (I think), some closely related terms migh split between
> sections in a way that makes their relationship less clear.

I originally tried to categorize terms to make the document clearer,
but I agree with you that it is not perfect.

> Suggestions:
> 
> 1 - Use some fancy client-side script technique that will reorder the
> terms either by category or overall alphabetically.
> 
> 2 - Order the main table alphabetically but provide a separate list by
> category that links to the alphabetic list.  Could one write an XSL
> stylesheet that would automate this?  (Probably depends on who the "one"
> is and how consistently the main table is tagged, I guess).

All your suggestions seem to be tools to achieve two orderings for the
document: one by category, one alphabetically.

We have the tools for doing so (DOM, XSLT, ...), but I think that one
thing that we should first agree on is a set of categories which makes
sense.

As you said, the current one is sub-optimal, and it seems that it will
be hard to limit every term to only one category.

The current list is[1]:

  2 Architectural Terms
  3 General Terms
  4 Choreography definitions
  5 Roles
  6 Service Properties
  7 SOAP Specific Definitions
      7.1 Protocol Concepts 
      7.2 Data Encapsulation Concepts
      7.3 Message Sender and Receiver Concepts
  8 Security and Privacy Related Terms
  9 Management Terms

The difference between 2, 3 and 5 is blurry. 4 may have to go back
into the {2,3,5} set at some point. 6, 7, 8 and 9 seem to be good
separate categories on the other hand.

Maybe we could look into reuniting {2,3,5}, give it a name, and see if
it would make more sense.

Regards,

Hugo

  1. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa-glossary.html
-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 07:41:58 GMT

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