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

Glossary - Working UEB Stuff (Continued)

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:16:11 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817CBB@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, "Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>
Here are my personal comments about the rest of the UEB/WSA glossary
overlaps (and a couple of other glossary issues).

Actor - Same flavor but different in detail.  WSArch - is a "person"
always a "legal entity"?  Is an actor really always a legal entity?  If
the answers are "Yes", then I prefer the WSA definition because it is
more specific and clear.  It needs grammatical tweaking -
providers->provider, and->or??  It seems to me that web services are, in
fact, agents.  So perhaps WSA might be changed to "An actor is a legal
entity - such as a person or a corporation - that may be the owner of
agents that either seek to use Web services or provide Web services.

Agent - Different.  I like the current WSA definition, but there is also
a current debate going on about that definition.  I find the UEB
definition obscure and possibly not what we mean.

Client - Different.  Different context.  Use WSA.

Party - Very similar, I think.  I like the UEB definition because it
seems more specific to me  Is either, however, really any different than
"actor"?  If so, how?

Receiver - Cut.  Defining "receiver" using "recipient" is doesn't seem
to help much.

Registry - Different.  UEB links definition to that of Repository, which
WSA doesn't have.  I suspect that UEB may be unnecesarily specific about
mechanism.   Suggest use WSA.

Registry Yada-Yada - Cut.  

Relationship - I like this.

Repository - I kind of like this one, too.  I can't see the harm in
having it.

Requester/responder - Requester is good, responder is not.  I don't know
if we need them or not.  Perhaps they are close enough to basic English
to cut?

Role - I like.

Server - Cut.  We are using "client" in a different context, and I don't
think we really talk about servers, do we?

Software developer - Is this part of the intended audience?  Maybe it
should be kept??  Maybe not.  I say cut.

Stakeholder - Hmmm.  Good definition, but I don't think it's needed.

Service Provider (WSA) - This definition may come from some standard
glossary, but it is not very good.  It's entirely circular.   Needs to
be re-stated.

Trading partner Yada - For some reason I think we should keep these, but
I think that might not be other's opinion.

URI - Looks OK to me, but no doubt the more pure at "Web-heart" will
object strenuously for some reason.

User Case - Looks good to me.  I think this is the same sense as we are
using it.  We should also include Usage Scenario.

Use-Case Yada - CUT!

Protocol - We need a definition ... is this it???  "Capsules"????  What
the heck is that??  "Messages types" ???  I think that this needs more
work.  Can't we steal a definition of protocol from some other WG?

Prototype - Probably OK definition but I think unneeded.

Authorization - Similar.  I think the WSA one is a lot better, however.

Authorization Process - Not needed.  Actually, inconsistent with WSA
definition since WSA "authorization" is itself the process.

Digital Signature - Good

Encryption - Good.

Secure MIME - Good?

SSL -- I like it.

Security Model - FINALLY -- one that is IDENTICAL.  Cribbed from the
same source.  Yippee.

Signature - This one seems very odd to me.  I say cut it.
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 15:16:40 GMT

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