- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Fri, 26 Jul 2002 07:15:30 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] > Sent: Friday, July 26, 2002 12:33 AM > To: 'Christopher B Ferris'; 'Champion, Mike' > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: D-AC005 CSFs > > In particular, 5.1 is quite ... odd. > So ironically, we need to create specialized jargon so that > we can clearly talk about our problem area. > A new area of reasoning requires a new > language, which equals specialized jargon. +1 As the guilty party here (at least I was the original champion of the simplicity goal/CSF) I completely agree! I agree this should be removed from the requirements, but just to defend myself :~) .... I think I was trying to get at the idea that an ordinary architect / specwriter / etc. shouldn't have to look too far outside a) the spec itself and b) his or her professional education and experience to understand the terminology. That is not always the case in W3C specs, IMHO -- working groups sometimes get wrapped up in their own worlds and words and forget that outsiders don't understand them. One example [please, I'm admitting my naivete, not starting a flame war!] is "ontology." I wasn't familiar with the sense in which that word had come to be used in the AI community over the last decade or so, and when XML-ers starting talking their "ontologies" I was baffled, and rather annoyed. I had been familiar with the way the term is used in philosophy (fundamental assumptions about existence) rather than its current sense (formal specification of a conceptualization). So, no formal requirement, but maybe a suggestion to the editors that we need to make VERY sure that our glossary is complete, agreed upon, and understandable by the target audience. In fact, after talking with Dave O. about this the other day, it dawned on me that the Glossary is a *big* part of what we are delivering, because we are (hopefully) going to propose a set of consistent and useful definitions of terms such as "orchestration" that are not understood in a common way. [Hmm, another example of a word that would totally baffle the non-initiated, especially music lovers!]
Received on Friday, 26 July 2002 09:16:09 UTC