- From: Amelia A Lewis <alewis@tibco.com>
- Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 14:16:50 -0400
- To: Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com>
- Cc: www-ws-desc@w3.org
On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 10:08:11 -0700 Mark Nottingham <mark.nottingham@bea.com> wrote: > On Jun 16, 2004, at 8:49 AM, Amelia A Lewis wrote: > > I'd like to take the latter suggestion as an editorial, if that suits > > others. It means fewer changes, and qualifies as editorial, I think. > > Fine by me. Request to Jonathan: please call for approval of an editorial change to part two clarifying the term "pattern" as proposed by Mark Nottingham. > Hmm. Anything but "generation." Does "transmission", when used in a > description context, really imply success? I dunno, I think so. Can we get other folks to state preferences? > Fault occurrence? Instantiation? Could we just say "fault rulesets"? I don't think the two of us can necessarily solve this. The problem: "fault generation" may clash with the same term used, with differing meaning, in the SOAP specification. Is that a correct statement? In which case we may need a different term, if this potential clash is seen as confusing (because it looks like the same concept but is different). Is it really true that "fault generation" in SOAP means something different? Proposed solutions so far: fault transmission ruleset, fault occurrence ruleset, fault instantiation ruleset, fault destination ruleset, fault ruleset. Could others perhaps respond with preferences for any of the above (including "fault generation," if you believe it to be appropriate)? It would be nice to get feedback that would allow a clear solution to be made without eating up teleconference time in linguistic wrangling. Much as I admire cunning linguists, the teleconference is not the place for such .... Amy! -- Amelia A. Lewis Senior Architect TIBCO/Extensibility, Inc. alewis@tibco.com
Received on Wednesday, 16 June 2004 14:24:34 UTC