W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > January 2001

RE: [AMG] Comments on strawman: Terminology and Diagrams

From: Williams, Stuart <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
Date: Fri, 26 Jan 2001 12:18:11 -0000
Message-ID: <5E13A1874524D411A876006008CD059F192150@0-mail-1.hpl.hp.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM>
Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Mark,

Thanks for your comments - much appreciated. I thought I'd respond in two
chucks to separate out the discussion threads.

I think your comments are made against a PDF version I sent to the WG. It
looks like I have broken the section numbering in the HTML version [1].
There seem to be two section 2's in [1]. I'll get that one fixed when we
update the document.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:mark.baker@Canada.Sun.COM]
> Sent: 25 January 2001 20:38
> To: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: [AMG] Comments on strawman
> 
> 
> Greetings,
> 
> Here's my comments on the strawman;
> 
> - I'd like to see the synchronicity between client & server in this
> architecture leveraged in this document.  In particular, I'd 
> like to see what is described as an "XP Client" to be considered an XP
processor
> that terminates.  i.e. XP processors process XP messages - some XP
> processors pass along their messages to another processor, 
> others don't.

Ray Dennenburg has made similar remarks with different suggestions.
Unfortunately his message only went to thw WG list, but you can find it
embedded in [2] in the xml-dist-app archive.

Taken together I think the sugestions are to rename "XP Client" to one of
"XP Processor", "XP User" or "XP Service User". In all cases an intermediary
would be an "XP Client" (however relabelled) that happens to pass messages
along.

"XP Processor" is fine by me and does bring about some alignment with the
glossary in the requirements document.

Ray: any comments?

> - re diagram in section 2 and subsequent question about layering, I'd
> like to see 2 layers only; an XP layer with intermediaries and
> terminating processors, and a "transport" layer with "transport"
> intermediaries.

So... if I understand how you'd like to see the picture drawn... you'd like
to move the initiating and responding XP Clients (my labeling) and the
intermediaries down below the horizontal line they currently sit above. You
may also be seeking to then have those entities merged with the 'XP_Layer
Entities' shown in the 'XP layer'.

> - would like to see notation synchronized with Henrik's (private, it
> appears) glossary submission (and vice-versa, if necessary)

I am both sympathetic to this, but I also have a difficulty The main problem
I have is that we have a glossary in a *requirements* document that seems to
be constraining our ability to create terminology as we being rough out the
space of a *solution*. I see the purpose of a glossary in a requirements
document to be to help elaborate requirement.

It may be that what we really need is a separate and living glossary. It
seems to me that there are knock-on effects when you 'play' with one term,
it has an effect on others. Getting a fully rounded set that fit comfortably
together is hard.

Regards

Stuart

[1] http://www.w3.org/2000/xp/Group/1/01/15-abstract-model/
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/xml-dist-app/2001Jan/0090.html
Received on Friday, 26 January 2001 07:18:23 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:58:58 GMT