- From: Mark Baker <distobj@acm.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:12:56 -0500
- To: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
On Wed, Feb 05, 2003 at 06:58:19PM +0100, Hugo Haas wrote: > > Element - RF definition is not really a definition, it is sort of a > > statement that seems to contain an implied definition. UEB definition > > is cryptic. I don't really like either, but I guess I'd go with RF as > > at least being comprehensible. > > I think that Fielding's dissertation excerpt could be reworded as: > > Element > > A part of an architecture (component, connector, or data). > Relationships between elements are constrained in order to > achieve a desired set of architectural properties. I'd suggest calling this an "Architectural Element". Then instead of "part" you could just use "element". MB -- Mark Baker. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca Web architecture consulting, technical reports, evaluation & analysis
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 10:10:48 UTC