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

Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]

From: Walden Mathews <waldenm@optonline.net>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 10:12:52 -0500
To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <002401c2ebce$84267b60$1702a8c0@WorkGroup>
>I think that Arkin responded on this point. We call them MEPs or Message 
>Exchenge Patterns for a reason:-) I am fairly certain that the XMLP group 
>had oneway message exchanges in mind when it coined the "MEP" phrase since I >was there at the time:)

In which case, it's message "exchange" patterns.  Which is fine
once it's been explained, but may not be all that obvious to
people who weren't "there".  Especially when you're trying to
incorporate it into the definition of sync/async, a subject plagued
by scope issues IMO.

>> Can you elaborate on why the definitions should not be complementary? 

>Because as Roger has so eloquently pointed out, his Aunt Mary is not 
>synchronous, so she must be asynchronous by our definition? I think we can do 
>better.

I think this is an instance of the scope problem, mainly, not an
argument against complement.  When you say Aunt Mary is not synchronous,
you've already lost me.  Could we have an in-scope example to make
this point, please?

Also, is it now fairly well established that the sync/async definitions
being worked on for the glossary are bounded to qualifying MEPs?  If
so, I'd like to resurrect an earlier suggestion, which is to change the
definition headings to "Synchronous Message Exchange", etc.  The broader
the task, it seems, the harder to get some consensus.

Regards,
Walden
 
Received on Sunday, 16 March 2003 10:12:59 GMT

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