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

Re: Action item on document work from F2F

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 18 Feb 2003 15:16:15 +0100
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030218141615.GH31847@w3.org>

* Newcomer, Eric <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com> [2003-02-05 17:33-0500]
> Attached is an update to the WSA document based on an initial attempt at exploring some of the suggestions from the face to face document breakout team.  Also attached is a diagram to illustrate the service oriented architecture concept, which I'll explain presently.
> The proposal was reviewed and discussed briefly during the editors' concall today.  It was noted that the concepts section overlaps with the glossary and we would need to ensure consistency across them and ensure the right topics and level of detail of is included for each.

I started reviewing the document more closely while I trying to
fulfill the following action item:

  ACTION: Hugo to do Glossary - missing definitions from document in

The Concepts section redefines terms that are in the glossary, and
defines additional ones, as you mentioned.

An example is feature:

| A feature is a subset of the architecture that relates to a
| particular requirement or larger scale property.

while the glossary reads:

| 1. An abstract piece of functionality.  
| 2. See also SOAP feature.

or the infamous agent definition.

I think that in order to make progress on this, it is important to
know why this draft ended up with different definitions and how
different they are (not to underline the importance of having records

That way we could see which characteristics of a concept are
important, which ones we have consensus on and which ones we need to



Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 18 February 2003 09:16:19 UTC

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