W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > xml-dist-app@w3.org > February 2002

Re: Who Faulted (was RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (l ong) )

From: Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 04 Feb 2002 10:19:29 +0000
Message-ID: <3C5E6031.5010708@sun.com>
To: "Williams, Stuart" <skw@hplb.hpl.hp.com>
CC: xml-dist-app@w3.org
Williams, Stuart wrote:

> 
>>For better or for worse, I think the current description in SOAP 1.2,
>>part 1 section 2 is adequate and consistent with the general Web
>>architecture of URI references. I therefore suggest that we 
>>leave it as is.
>>
> 
> I don't think anyone as made any arguement either way about its consistency
> with Web Architecture. I think that the proposal from the editors has been
> motivated primarily from the point-of-view of clarity of the narrative and
> consistency with the commonly held meanings of words like actor and role.
> 

That is indeed the intent. In addition, I don't think changing the name 
from actor to role in any way changes the consistency or otherwise of 
SOAP 1.2 with the general web architecture of URI references.

Some dictionary definitions that might be useful:


role n. 1 an actor's part in a play, film etc. 2 a person's or thing's

characteristic or expected function.

perform v. 1 carry into effect; be the agent of; do. ...

actor n. 1a person who acts a role in a play etc. 1b a person whose

profession is performing such roles.

At the risk of stating the obvious: if a node acts then it is an actor, 
when an actor performs it plays a role.

Regards,
Marc.


-- 
Marc Hadley <marc.hadley@sun.com>
XML Technology Centre, Sun Microsystems.
Received on Monday, 4 February 2002 05:19:50 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Monday, 7 December 2009 10:59:06 GMT