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

Re: Updated glossary

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 14 Jan 2004 13:09:03 +0100
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20040114120903.GA32664@w3.org>
* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com> [2004-01-13 11:16-0600]
> 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.

Fixed. That was from earlier drafts.

> - 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?

FWIW, I don't think that we need a definition of end user. I suggest
dropping it. I have added a note accordingly.

> - 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.
> - 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.

Actually, rereading those definitions, they look fine to me.

However, I was unsure about keeping them as they aren't used at all in
the document, and therefore it isn't clear what role they play in the

> - 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.

It was proposed by you:


I don't mind removing it. I have flagged it as such.

> - 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
> escape.

This comes from Yin-Leng's proposed text. I will update it with
whatever goes in the document.

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

Do others concur?

> - 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? 

Save as "manageable service".

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

I propose dropping repository as registry is discussed in our

> - 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.

I think that this is our issue since we are calling something with a
name of another widely used thing which is slightly different.



Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/

Received on Wednesday, 14 January 2004 07:09:04 UTC

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