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

Re: Requester/provider agent/entity terminology

From: Francis McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>
Date: Sat, 24 Jan 2004 09:23:45 -0800
Message-Id: <104B895E-4E92-11D8-B425-000A95DC494A@mac.com>
Cc: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
To: "Newcomer, Eric" <Eric.Newcomer@iona.com>

   I think it would be a big mistake to take people out of the 
architecture. It might be neater from a technological POV but it would 
also be less relevant. A big part of security, trust, e-commerce, 
supply chain mgt, management etc. is *about* people.

On Jan 24, 2004, at 3:42 AM, Newcomer, Eric wrote:

> This is a great step forward in consistency for us. Maybe we can talk 
> about this at the F2F because the more I read it (and maybe it's 
> clearer now than it was) the more I want to avoid including the 
> concepts of people and organizations.  If we were to deal with only a 
> single kind of entity - the software kind - we would be simpler and 
> perhaps more consistent still.
> Eric
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Francis McCabe
> Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2004 11:56 AM
> To: David Booth
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Requester/provider agent/entity terminology
> The trouble with thing is that in normal English usage it refers to
> physical objects, and certainly not actions or abstract potential for
> action.
> One of the ramifications of the word entity is one of cohesion and
> wholeness. In fact, again in normal English usage, entity is more
> abstract than person or organization; although entity is sometimes used
> to denote organizations.
> I do not much like the RFC version of the resource definition. It
> sounds like it was thrown together without much thought.
> However, I recognize that its slippery and probably not worth losing a
> whole lot of sleep over.
> On Jan 21, 2004, at 5:42 PM, David Booth wrote:
>> I believe I've finished making our terminology consistent in our WSA
>> document[1].  Informally:
>>         provider agent -- the agent that realizes a Web service
>>         requester agent -- the agent that interacts with a provider
>> agent
>>         provider entity -- the person or org. owning the provider 
>> agent
>>         requester entity -- the person or org. owning the requester
>> agent
>>         service requester -- (ambiguous; to be avoided in this doc)
>>         service provider -- (ambiguous; to be avoided in this doc)
>> As a result, there were a MANY small changes I made along the way.
>> Most weren't worth noting, but a few I wanted to mention:
>> Changed some occurrences of the word "entity" when it wasn't referring
>> to our defined term "requester entity" or "provider entity".
>> Tweeked the concept description of "service" accordingly.
>> Deleted "A resource is an entity" from the concepts definition of
>> "resource", in order to avoid confusing it with our "person or
>> organization" use of the term "entity".  Since a resource can be
>> anything, I think we can probably do without the statement.  Frank, do
>> you want to push back on this change, or are you okay with this?
>> The term "service" (as a noun) was used in two different ways: (a) to
>> refer to a task ("X asked Y to perform a particular service"); or (b)
>> to refer to the thing that performs the task ("X sent a message to Y's
>> service").  I've tried to changes uses of sense (a) to use "task"
>> instead.
>> Added concept definitions of "requester entity" and "provider entity".
>>  They are a little meager.  Frank may want to fill them out better,
>> but I ran out of time tonight.
>> Whew!
>> 1.
>> http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/%7Echeckout%7E/2002/ws/arch/wsa/wd-wsa-arch-
>> review2.html
>> -- 
>> David Booth
>> W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard
>> Telephone: +1.617.253.1273
Received on Saturday, 24 January 2004 12:25:40 UTC

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