W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2003

Re: [ws-chor] 4/1/2003: Glossary Starting Point

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Wed, 9 Apr 2003 18:38:17 +0200
To: "Monica J. Martin" <monica.martin@sun.com>
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Message-ID: <20030409163817.GG26283@w3.org>

Hi Monica.

* Monica J. Martin <monica.martin@sun.com> [2003-04-01 15:55-0700]
> As requested, please find attached a starting point for a glossary.

It looks good. Here are a few comments that I gathered while I was
reviewing your document and comparing it with the Web Services
Glossary[1] (WSG).

Also, you may want to have a look at an earlier glossary thread[2],
although I think that you did already take it into consideration, so I
won't comment on it.

Conversation: as you noted, the WSG has a different but simpler
definition; the definition of conversation should actually probably go
into WSG's section 4 and the WSCWG's version should be adopted; so I
don't think that's an issue.

Interface: I couldn't really tell how close the WSDL 1.2 description
and your proposed description were. In any case, since this WG is
chartered to build on top of WSDL 1.2, I think that using a common set
of terms and definition would be a good thing. I think that the
harvesting exercise proposed by Martin will be particularly helpful

Operation: same comment. The document says: "In the current
specification, the Operation maps to WSDL operations." I consider this
as a good thing again.

Role: I think that your definition is equivalent to the one found in
the WSG. You may want to just reuse this one or ask for a modification
of the one in the WSG.

service / service type / Web service: the definitions are different
from what can be found in the WSG. Also, it seems that service type
introduces a level of abstraction that is missing from the
architecture, I think. We probably need to look at this more carefully
since the concept of Web service is something that all the Working
Groups in the Web Services Activity need to agree on.

state: there is a definition in the WSG, but it hasn't been the
subject of long discussions.



PS: in the future, can you please send a copy of your document in text
or HTML format in addition to Word format (see [3] for background);
thank you.

  1. http://dev.w3.org/cvsweb/~checkout~/2002/ws/arch/glossary/wsa-glossary.html?rev=1.37&content-type=text/html
  2. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Mar/0015.html
  3. http://www.w3.org/2002/03/email_attachment_formats.html
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Wednesday, 9 April 2003 12:38:19 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:00 UTC