- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Feb 2003 14:12:41 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
- cc: hugo@w3.org
- Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E0162498C@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
Dummy me. Here's a 45 Kby ZIP file. Sorry. <<WD-ws-gloss-20021114 - RTC.zip>> > -----Original Message----- > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 2:11 PM > To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org' > Cc: 'hugo@w3.org' > Subject: FW: Merge of WS-Arch Glossary with ebXML Glossary > > The following note was sent prior to another note that has already hit > the public email group. It contained, however, an attachment that is > over 400 Kby. Is this not possible or very rude? Is there something > else I can do with this? [WATCH OUT!!! Don't say it! ...] > > -----Original Message----- > From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) > Sent: Monday, February 03, 2003 12:27 PM > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Cc: 'Hugo Haas' > Subject: Merge of WS-Arch Glossary with ebXML Glossary > > > > Attached is an attempt to merge parts of the ebXML draft glossary into > ours. I have tried to include terms that are the same as those we > have defined plus some (many) that I think may be related. I probably > went way too far including terms starting with "Business ...", but I > figured they are the experts on these and we can pick what we like. I > left out anything that seemed to me specific to ebXML, UML or OOP -- > all of which seem to me peripheral to WS-Arch. > > Note that the ebXML glossary is DRAFT. I neglected to mention that in > the "Status" section I modified. > > Mechanically it was done by cutting and pasting from Word into the > current HTML document (not the XML version, of course). I'm sure the > result was some really horrible HTML. The intention is not to develop > the document itself but to provide a useful analysis tool. I have > not, however, attempted any analysis other than the selection of > terms. In some cases the definitions seem similar, in others they are > wildly different. Sometimes I think that the difference is OK -- just > a matter of different contexts -- in other cases it doesn't look so OK > to me. > > Here is an explanation of some of the contents of the last column > (source). I don't know what RUP means. > > The revision includes definitions from: > ebXML Glossary, Version 0.99 > UN/CEFACT' s Modelling Methodology N090R10 (Referred to as UMM > in the Glossary), Modelling Methodology Glossary > UN/CEFACT - ebXML Core Components Technical Specification, Part > 1, Version 1.85 (Referred to as CCTS 1.90 in the Glossary) > OASIS Collaboration-Protocol Profile and Agreement > Specification, Version 2.0 (Referred to as CPPA 2.0 in the Glossary) > UN/CEFACT - ebXML Business Process Specification Schema, Version > 1.05 (Referred to as BPSS 1.05 in the Glossary) > UN/CEFACT - ebXML Architecture Technical Specification Version > 0.58 (Referred to as UEBA 0.58 in the Glossary) > - ISO-IEC-ITU-UN/ECE Memorandum of Understanding on > ElectronicBusiness >
Attachments
- application/x-zip-compressed attachment: WD-ws-gloss-20021114 - RTC.zip
Received on Monday, 3 February 2003 15:13:05 UTC