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

Re: Draft of the Web Services Glossary

From: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>
Date: Thu, 8 May 2003 09:15:04 -0400
To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF8EE4B1B9.3CF8311B-ON85256D1E.003DAD42-85256D20.0048C83E@us.ibm.com>
Hugo,

Looks good, a minor comment.

The Abstract reads:

This document is a glossary of Web services terms intended to be used to 
describe the Web services architecture [WS Arch], and across the Web 
Services Activity.

I don't think that the glossary describes the architecture spec, rather, I 
think that what was meant was that the glossary defines the terms used in 
the WSA as well as may be used by other WGs in the WS Activity. How 'bout:

This document is a glossary of terms found in the Web services 
architecture [WS Arch]. Additionally, it is intended for use by the other 
Working Groups in the Web Services Activity. 

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 05/06/2003 05:35:18 AM:

> 
> I have integrated the changes below in:
> 
> 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa-glossary.html?rev=1.41&content-
> type=text/html&only_with_tag=edcopy_2003050601
> 
> * 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
> concern?
> 
> > 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.
> 
> > 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'
> note?
> 
> > 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
> everywhere.
> 
> > 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
> self-explanatory.
> 
> If there is much discomfort, I can remove those two terms altogether.
> 
> > 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.
> 
> > 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 
systems 
> > 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.
> 
> Done.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Hugo
> 
>   1. 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa-glossary.html?rev=1.40&content-
> type=text/html&only_with_tag=edcopy_20030430#coreconcepts
>   2. 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa-glossary.html?rev=1.40&content-
> type=text/html&only_with_tag=edcopy_20030430#choreographydefs
>   3. 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-review2.html?rev=1.
> 13&content-type=text/html#legal_entity
>   4. 
http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa-glossary.html?rev=1.40&content-
> type=text/html&only_with_tag=edcopy_20030430#WCTDS
> -- 
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
> 
Received on Thursday, 8 May 2003 09:15:28 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:18 GMT