- From: <michael.mahan@nokia.com>
- Date: Tue, 2 Jul 2002 16:39:27 -0400
- To: <hugo@w3.org>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Hugo, Sorry for the tardy response. >[..] >> AR00X.4: (this still needs work) >> component relationships are described in terms of messages >and message >> transmission protocols. (original) >> OR >> relationships between components must be well described >> (suggested, I feel this is not enough) > >I think that there is a terminology problem here. > >The first proposal suggests that "components" means Web services. I >understand the second one as referring to components of the >architecture, such as choreography, security. > >I am happy with the first one, but I think that "components" is a >confusing word to use here. > I have been leaning towards the first first too. The intent is to define what really is a relationship/connector in the WS architecture. However there has been some pushback on the first and the second does not address the intent of the requirement. I believe the group, with maybe the harvesting TF taking the lead, needs to get some concensus on the terms, notation, and method to model the architecture. Mike
Received on Tuesday, 2 July 2002 16:40:47 UTC