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

RE: Draft of the Web Services Glossary

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 6 May 2003 09:52:28 -0500
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817E18@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, "Jon Dart" <jdart@tibco.com>, "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org

Answers inline, flagged by *********

-----Original Message-----
From: Hugo Haas [mailto:hugo@w3.org] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2003 4:35 AM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); Jon Dart; Francis McCabe
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Draft of the Web Services Glossary

I have integrated the changes below in:


* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
[2003-04-30 14:03-0500]
> Here are some comments.  In general, portions of this are MUCH 
> improved
> -- but some of the sections are weird, to put it mildly.  Would it be
> possible to flag the sections that are included for some "to-be-done"
> reason and distinguish them from sections that have been reasonably
> worked over?

I guess that you are referring to the core concepts section[1] and the
choreagraphy section[2].

I have marked them both as under heavy rework. Does that address your

********* Yes.  I think that is very helpful.

> Actor - As I understand it a legal entity can own agents or Web 
> services separately.  That is, ownership of a Web service does not 
> always come through ownership of the agent, and in fact the two may 
> have different owners.  I think.  Suggest: "... That may be the owner 
> of agents and/or Web services".

Hmmm... actually, worded as such, actor is a synonym of legal entity[3].

I don't think that the definition of actor needs to be changed, but
rather actor should be replaced by legal entity. I have added such a
comment in the editorial note about that for legal entity.

********** I don't think it is pressing, but sooner or later we need to
get this business straightened out of what a legal entity can own.  I
distinctly recall a discussion at a F2F where people clearly said,
giving examples, that legal entities can own either Web services or
agents, and that the ownership can be different.  That was not me saying
this -- I'm just recalling the conversation.  If so (and the examples
seemed real to me) this needs to be reflected in both the architecture
and the glossary.

> Discovery - Is this compatible with David Booth's diagrams and 
> analysis? In particular, I am concerned that some scenarios do not 
> involve machine processable descriptions but instead what he calls 
> "semantics".
> Suggest: "The act of locating a description ..."  At the very least I
> would like to see this flagged as not representing consensus.

This is a definition that David came up with, so I trust it reflects its
work. It is actually used in the architecture document.

Does that address your concern or do you want me to add an editors'

********** Yes, that addresses my concern.

> Message - I question the use of the word "client", which has an 
> implication to me of a client-server model.  The definition of 
> "client", in fact, simply refers to "requestor".  Suggest:  Eliminate 
> client in favor of requestor, see if one can eliminate client 
> altogether.  Also, the English is fractured somehow unless there is 
> some punctuation after the word client that I cannot see in this font.

Agreed. Client has disappeared and been replaced by requester

> Safe - Is this consistent with other sources, notable Web 
> architecture? If so, should reference.

This definition is adapted from RFC2616, so I trust that it should be
consistent with the Web architecture. I have added an RFC2616 reference.

Same comment for idempotent.

> Web site - Is this accurate?  Does it come from somewhere?  It seems 
> to me that Web sites can include things that are not pages, like 
> executables and Web services.

As noted, this definition comes from Web Characterization Terminology &
Definitions Sheet[4].

Web site is only used by browser, which isn't used anywhere else. The
term appears in the architecture document, but maybe the term is

If there is much discomfort, I can remove those two terms altogether.

************ No, no serious discomfort -- I was just asking.  In fact,
however, I wonder whether we really need it.  No strong opinion,

> Legal Entity - Suggest: "... Or of Web services themselves".

This is extracted from the architecture document. I'd rather leave it
alone for now unless you can't live with it.

******** As I said above, not pressing but we need to get this straight
at some point.  Maybe a reminder in the text would be useful?

> Manageable element - Suggest eliminate or improve.  This definition 
> adds nothing that is not evident from the term itself.

I added an editors' note to that effect. Again, it is extracted from the
architecture document. I have updated the definition which has changed
after Frank's edits.

> Manageability Interface - This seems too general to me.  I think it 
> covers way too much, as I understand it.  Suggest eliminate or rework.
> Message Description Language - Circular.  Eliminate.
> Message identifier, recipient, etc -- Ditto.

Same comment.

> Declarative and Procedural - WHAT????  I give up -- this is getting 
> too weird.

This section is, I think, clearly marked as in progress. I agree that
those two definitions are less ready than the others. I have commented
them out.

* Jon Dart <jdart@tibco.com> [2003-04-30 12:13-0700]
> I trust the "reliable messaging" definition is still a work in 
> progress.
> As it stands, the text says that RM implies both confirmation of 
> receipt
> and once-and-only-once delivery. In fact, real reliable message
> may offer either of these capabilities, or both, and in addition other

> capabilities, as part of a spectrum of quality of service options.
* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
[2003-05-01 11:34-0500]
> In general this looks pretty good to me, although some wordsmithing 
> and smoothing is obviously still necessary.  I agree with both of 
> Jon's comments below.
> Hugo -- you should note that the glossary definition of RM is now out 
> of whack with the document.




Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 6 May 2003 10:53:09 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:06 UTC