- From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Date: Tue, 4 Feb 2003 14:16:11 -0600
- To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org, "Duane Nickull" <duane@xmlglobal.com>
- Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817CBB@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
Here are my personal comments about the rest of the UEB/WSA glossary overlaps (and a couple of other glossary issues). Actor - Same flavor but different in detail. WSArch - is a "person" always a "legal entity"? Is an actor really always a legal entity? If the answers are "Yes", then I prefer the WSA definition because it is more specific and clear. It needs grammatical tweaking - providers->provider, and->or?? It seems to me that web services are, in fact, agents. So perhaps WSA might be changed to "An actor is a legal entity - such as a person or a corporation - that may be the owner of agents that either seek to use Web services or provide Web services. Agent - Different. I like the current WSA definition, but there is also a current debate going on about that definition. I find the UEB definition obscure and possibly not what we mean. Client - Different. Different context. Use WSA. Party - Very similar, I think. I like the UEB definition because it seems more specific to me Is either, however, really any different than "actor"? If so, how? Receiver - Cut. Defining "receiver" using "recipient" is doesn't seem to help much. Registry - Different. UEB links definition to that of Repository, which WSA doesn't have. I suspect that UEB may be unnecesarily specific about mechanism. Suggest use WSA. Registry Yada-Yada - Cut. Relationship - I like this. Repository - I kind of like this one, too. I can't see the harm in having it. Requester/responder - Requester is good, responder is not. I don't know if we need them or not. Perhaps they are close enough to basic English to cut? Role - I like. Server - Cut. We are using "client" in a different context, and I don't think we really talk about servers, do we? Software developer - Is this part of the intended audience? Maybe it should be kept?? Maybe not. I say cut. Stakeholder - Hmmm. Good definition, but I don't think it's needed. Service Provider (WSA) - This definition may come from some standard glossary, but it is not very good. It's entirely circular. Needs to be re-stated. Trading partner Yada - For some reason I think we should keep these, but I think that might not be other's opinion. URI - Looks OK to me, but no doubt the more pure at "Web-heart" will object strenuously for some reason. User Case - Looks good to me. I think this is the same sense as we are using it. We should also include Usage Scenario. Use-Case Yada - CUT! Protocol - We need a definition ... is this it??? "Capsules"???? What the heck is that?? "Messages types" ??? I think that this needs more work. Can't we steal a definition of protocol from some other WG? Prototype - Probably OK definition but I think unneeded. Authorization - Similar. I think the WSA one is a lot better, however. Authorization Process - Not needed. Actually, inconsistent with WSA definition since WSA "authorization" is itself the process. Digital Signature - Good Encryption - Good. Secure MIME - Good? SSL -- I like it. Security Model - FINALLY -- one that is IDENTICAL. Cribbed from the same source. Yippee. Signature - This one seems very odd to me. I say cut it.
Received on Tuesday, 4 February 2003 15:16:40 UTC