RE: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text

hi, inline comments....
-----Original Message-----
From: Husband, Yin-Leng [mailto:yin-leng.husband@hp.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:14 PM
To: GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Cc: Husband, Yin-Leng
Subject: RE: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text


Hi Shishir,
 
2.2.26 Message recipient
 
RE: 2.2.26.1 Summary
The proposed modification to 2.2.26.1 would lose some essential relationship
information relating the message being consumed to its message sender.  I
suggest retaining the current text. 
 The original text in the 2003/07/01 version was:
"A message recipient is an agent that is intended - by the message's sender
- to consume the message."
 
All I changed there was replaced "message's sender" with "message sender" in
order to use the concept of a message sender directly as defined in 2.2.27.
I think this change emphasized the definition of the relationships based on
the concepts being defined. What info has been lost so I can capture it?
 
RE: 2.2.26.3 Description
I suggest that either the paragraph discussing intermediaries be dropped
from this section or re-worded in the context of message recipient.
Since "a message recipient is an agent", the text for this section (second
sentence) should not be "The message recipient of an agent ..." 
 
I was a little unsure of the original text, but thought the "of an agent"
notion was meant to capture the fact that an agent can be many things, and
here we're discussing the message recipient part of the agent... I am happy
to drop the "of an agent" in both 26 and 27.
In addition, I propose removing references to "anonymous" (which means
unknown source) in this section.  Propose the following modified text.
The message recipient is the agent that the sender intends the message to be
consumed by.  The message recipient may be identified by its agent
identifier in a message envelope; however, the agent identifier of the
message recipient is not required to be supplied in the case of
broadcast-style interactions.
In general, a message may be intended for more than one recipient.
Furthermore, in some cases, the sending agent may not have direct knowledge
of the identity of the message recipient (for example, in multicast or
broadcast situations).
Optionally,
Messages may also be passed through intermediaries that process aspects of
the message; typically by examining the message headers. The message
recipient may or may not be aware of processing by such intermediaries. 
I agree with these changes, and don't mind not mentioning anonymous
interactions, but at the same time, it's probably useful to relate the
"Message recipient" concept with the "Intermediary" concept and then the
anonymous interactions can be implied. So, I would suggest keeping the
optional text suggested by Yin-Leng.
 
2.2.27 Message sender
 
RE: 2.2.27.3 Description
 
I suggest that either the paragraph discussing intermediaries be dropped
from this section or that similar paragraphs be present in both  message
recipient and message sender sections. 
 
As I just wrote above, lets add the intermediary text in for both sender and
recipient.  
Propose the following modified text consistent with proposed 2.2.26.3 text.
A message sender is the agent that originally caused a new message to be
created and sent to an agent. The message sender may be identified by its
agent identifier in a message envelope; however, the agent identifier of the
message sender may not be available in the case of anonymous interactions.
Optionally,
Messages may also be passed through intermediaries that process aspects of
the message; typically by examining the message headers. The sending agent
may or may not be aware of processing by such intermediaries.
Yin Leng
 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: GARG Shishir / FTR&D / US [mailto:shishir.garg@rd.francetelecom.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, 2 July 2003 4:08 PM
To: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: Message Recipient 2.2.26 & Sender 2.2.27 text
 
hi, per the last concall, I have taken a look at the existing text for
2.2.26 and 2.2.27 and propose only minor modifications to the original text
as follows. Also, there is some text regarding intermediaries that I think
is more appropriate to associate with the sender's description:
2.2.26 Message recipient 
2.2.26.1 Summary 
A message recipient is an agent that is intended - by a message sender - to
consume the message. 
2.2.26.2 Relationships to other elements 
a message recipient is 
an agent 
2.2.26.3 Description 
The message recipient is the agent that the sender intends the message to be
consumed by. The message recipient of an agent may be represented as the
agent's identifier in a message envelope; however, in the case of anonymous
or broadcast-style interactions, the recipient of a message may not be
available to the sender, and vice-versa.
In general, a message may be intended for more than one recipient.
Furthermore, in some cases, the sending agent may not have direct knowledge
of the identity of the message recipient (for example, in multi-case
situations or in the case anonymous interactions with a service provider.)



2.2.27 Message sender 
2.2.27.1 Summary 
A message sender is the agent that originates a message. 
2.2.27.2 Relationships to other elements 
a message sender is 
an agent 
2.2.27.3 Description 
A message sender is the agent that originally caused a new message to be
created and sent to an agent. The message sender of an agent may be
represented as the agent's identifier in a message envelope; however, in the
case of anonymous interactions the originator of a message may not be
available.
Messages may also be passed through intermediaries that process aspects of
the message; typically by examining the message headers. The sending agent
may or may not be aware of such intermediaries.
-#-#-# 
Couple of additional comments: 
* I would suggest the Intermediary text in 2.2.11.1 Summary read: 
An intermediary is a message processing node that does not necessarily
represent the message's intended recipient; but which, none-the-less may
process some aspect of the message.
* Does 2.2.26.3 need to mention intermediaries at all?