W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Updated glossary

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 11:16:38 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E031328BD@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I will (probably) review more carefully on the plane, but here are a
couple quick comments:

- I suggest eliminating the second paragraph.  The one that starts, "It
is expected ...".  At the best I think this paragraph is weird, at the
worst misleading.  I personally expect nothing of the kind.  And the
introduction does not really do what this says.

- End User: I know this comes from somewhere else, but what the heck is
a "natural person"?  Is this supposed to be some sort of distinction
from something else?  And if so, what?  Is the definition really
necessary at all?

- Gateway: I'd rather not lose this one because it's interesting and
non-trivial.  It would be nice, of course, if it were correct and in
harmony with usage in the document, which as I understand may still be
somewhat in a state of flux.

- Implementation:  Is this necessary?  If so, it seems a bit too brief
and cryptic to me.  If it is necessary I think it should be expanded so
that it is clear what value the definition adds.  Frankly I'd rather see
it go away, however.

- Manageable Service:  Grammatically not very good and the whole thing
seems substandard.  I think the core concepts are struggling to get out
of this prose, but that it needs some word-smithing to allow them to

- Management:  Actually seems better than the previous one, and not all
that circular.  I'd say it's actually OK.

- Proxy:  Even if unused in the document I'd like to see this stay, as
discussed under gateway.  Maybe it SHOULD be used in the document.
Anything that clarifies this situation is appreciated.

- Quality of Service:  Somehow I don't think this is adequate.  I don't
think just any old obligation qualifies as a QOS.  Doesn't it refer to
obligations of a certain sort? 

- Registry and Repository:  Is there a difference?  If so, it is not
clear from these definitions.

- Resource:  Seems to me that there may be an issue here, but that it's
not OUR issue and that if we say there's an ussue we should also say
something along those lines.

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Hugo Haas
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 10:27 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Updated glossary


I have update the glossary, and it should now be in sync (with
Yin-Leng's management stuff in, which hasn't been integrated yet) with
the document:


I have removed duplicates about empty definitions.

There are quite a few definitions that are IMO unnecessary or unwanted.
I have added an editors' notes to tag them and explain why. If I haven't
heard any objections by next Monday, I will proceed to their removal.

While doing this, I have noted two issues:
- our definition of resource (from the document) is different from the
  one of a Web resource; I am uncomfortable with this, and think that
  we should qualify it, though I haven't found a good qualifyer for
- I remembered that we are still missing the concept of intermediary
  in the document. Frank, I had gotten the impression from [1] that
  you had the intention to deal with this. Is that still the case?

I have added issues in the glossary about that.



Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 12:16:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:10 UTC