W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

Re: New editors' copy of the Web Services Architecture Glossary available

From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 11:48:39 +0100
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-ID: <20021029104839.GD918@w3.org>

Hi Mark.

* Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org> [2002-10-28 12:04-0500]
> I see that the definition of "gateway" that we came up with didn't make
> it into this version.  Perhaps you could incorporate it in at a
> convenient time.

Oops, an omission.

> Here's what I believe is the latest, incorporating input from
> Jean-Jacques and DaveH [1][2][3];
> "Gateway: a node that terminates a message on an inbound interface with
> the intent of presenting it through an outbound interface as a new
> message. Unlike a proxy, a gateway receives messages as if it were the
> final receiver for the message. Due to possible mismatches between the
> inbound and outbound interfaces, a message may be modified and may have
> some or all of its meaning lost during the conversion process. For
> example, an HTTP PUT has no equivalent in SMTP.  Note: a gateway may or
> may not be a SOAP node; however a gateway is never a SOAP intermediary,
> since gateways terminate messages and SOAP intermediaries relay them
> instead. Being a gateway is typically a permanent role, whilst being a
> SOAP intermediary is message specific."

I added it to the draft.

> The tricky bit would be deciding which section to put it in.  It isn't
> SOAP-specific, so Section 7 seems the wrong place, but it would be nice
> to fit it with other protocol-related definitions.  Perhaps you could
> rename Section 7 to "Protocol Definitions", and perhaps 7.1 to
> "Core Protocol Concepts" or something like that ...?  I don't really
> care, just pointing out the issue.

Well, I tried to separate the concepts into categories, but it isn't
easy nor obvious, and we may decide that we don't want them in the

For now, I am putting it under section 5, Roles, unless somebody
thinks that it should really go some place else.

That made me realize that "node" was not defined, but "party" was, and
it seems that "node" is a better term than "party" for:

|   Party
|          Any system entity taking part into an interaction.  

For now, I put:

|   Node
|          Relationship with SOAP node and party?
|          @@@ Better term than party?



>  [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0180
>  [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0181
>  [3] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0194

Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Tuesday, 29 October 2002 05:48:41 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 23:05:42 UTC