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

Re: Snapshot of Web Services Glossary

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 11 Mar 2003 15:47:50 -0500
To: David Booth <dbooth@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030311204750.GC1325@w3.org>

* David Booth <dbooth@w3.org> [2003-02-20 11:51-0500]
> Great work Hugo!  My suggestions:

Thank you for your comments.

[..]
> 2. a priori information
> I suggest eliminate this term from the glossary.  There is an issue 
> regarding the INTENT of that term in the architecture document, and that 
> issue does need to be resolved.  But the term itself is not meant in any 
> special sense that is specific to Web services.  I think the way to resolve 
> the issue is to add more explanation to our architecture document, rather 
> than defining any special meaning for the term.

This is what I ended up doing. I will follow-up with a reply to issue
1's submitter.

[..]
> 4. operation
> We might want to tie this definition to the definition of MEP.  I suggest 
> changing
> [[
> A set of messages related to a single Web service action. [WSD Reqs]
> ]]
> to
> [[
> A sequence of messages, related by a particular message exchange pattern, 
> that are associated with a single, logical Web service action.
> ]]

I like your definition. However, I would like to stay in sync with the
Web Services Description WG. Is that the current one there?

Maybe we could also use this one and just have the Description WG use
it.

[..]
> 6. attribute
> Do we need this definition?  Is it specific to Web services?  Is there a 
> question of how it relates to Web services?  I think not, though there 
> isn't a big harm in retaining it.

Attribute is used in other definitions, but I agree that it is not WS
specific. I think that I will keep it around until the management
terms definitions are made consistent with the rest and then see if we
should keep it or not. The MTF used terms like properties.

> 8. metric
> [[
> A metric is an attribute of an architectural component that may be defined 
> during the configuration of the architectural component, can be measured 
> during the use of this architecture component, and whose value may be 
> evaluated.
> ]]
> Do we need this definition?  I guess I don't see the need for a definition 
> of "metric" that is specific to Web services.

It was used (and redefined) by the MTF. I think that we need it and we
need to merge the two.

> 9. state
> Do we need to define "state"?  I don't think we need a definition of 
> "state" that is specific to Web services.

That's a good point. Again, I think that the management terms bring a
whole set of new terms that need to be either kept or considered as
general knowledge and dropped.

> 10.  synchronous
> [[
> Property of an interaction whose results are directly following the 
> interaction.
> ]]
> I suggest adding:
> [[
> An interaction between an initiator and a respondent is synchronous if the 
> initiator blocks some further processing while it waits for a corresponding 
> action, response or acknowledgement from the respondent.
> ]]

I haven't done anything with this since we haven't reached consensus
yet. Please don't start a new thread on this topic by replying to my
email. David has sent an email doing a straw poll:

  http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2003Mar/0074.html

> 11. declarative
> I suggest deleting this term, since I don't think we need to give it any 
> meaning that is specific to Web services.
> 
> 12. procedural
> I suggest deleting this term also.
> 
> 13. Turing complete
> I suggest deleting this term also.

Those three are in the choreography section which has not been
reworked in a while. I agree that they should go away, but would like
to send them to the Web Services Choreography Working Group first.

> 14. actor
> [[
> 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.
> ]]
> I think we should use a different term for this concept.  I would suggest 
> the using the term "legal entity" for the above concept.  For the term 
> "actor" I suggest using the following definition:
> [[
> A physical or conceptual entity that can perform actions.  Examples: 
> people; companies; machines; running software.  An actor can take on (or 
> implement) one or more roles.  An actor at one level of abstraction may be 
> viewed as a role at a lower level of abstraction.
> ]]

I like it, but I would like to see it changed in the architecture
document first before doing the change in the glossary in order to
keep it in sync.

I added it as a second definition for now.

WSA editors, what do you think of the above definition?

> 16. intermediary
> [[
> Node taking part into a message exchange between a client and a Web service.
> ]]
> I suggest:
> [[
> A Node is an intermediary if messages from the client pass through the 
> intermediary on their way to the Web service, or vice versa.
> ]]

David and I settled on:

  A node is an intermediary if a message from the service requester to
  the service provider (or vice versa) passes through the node.

I have also added a reference to "SOAP intermediary" (more in the
reply to Jean-Jacques's comments).

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 11 March 2003 15:48:04 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:16 GMT