- From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Date: Mon, 22 Nov 2004 07:33:29 -0800
- To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>, "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>, <www-ws-desc@w3.org>
As far as I remember, there was a recent vote where it was decided not to refer to the agent concept in the particular context that the vote related to. I am not aware of any previous decision of avoiding any future reference to the agent concept, or of avoiding any reference to the WSA document. (If I missed such a decision, please point it out to me). Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Sanjiva Weerawarana [mailto:sanjiva@watson.ibm.com] > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 3:57 PM > To: Ugo Corda; David Booth; www-ws-desc@w3.org > Subject: Re: Proposed definition of node > > > Um, been there, done that .. pls see the mailing list > archives. We've discussed this topic enough times! > > Sanjiva. > > ----- Original Message ----- > From: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com> > To: "Sanjiva Weerawarana" <sanjiva@watson.ibm.com>; "David > Booth" <dbooth@w3.org>; <www-ws-desc@w3.org> > Sent: Sunday, November 21, 2004 11:53 PM > Subject: RE: Proposed definition of node > > > > > > I don't see what is the problem in leveraging definitions > produced by > > the Web Services Architecture WG. > > > > My company, like many others, put a lot of efforts in that > work, and > > IBM itself was a member of the WG at the time that work was > finalized. > > > > I know that the WSA document is a WG Note and not a > Recommendation - > > but that does not change the basic observation that a lot of W3C > > members' work went into that spec and it does not seem fair > to act as > > if all that work did not occur. > > > > Ugo > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: www-ws-desc-request@w3.org > [mailto:www-ws-desc-request@w3.org] > > > On Behalf Of Sanjiva Weerawarana > > > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 8:00 PM > > > To: David Booth; www-ws-desc@w3.org > > > Cc: Anish Karmarkar > > > Subject: Re: Proposed definition of node > > > > > > > > > > > > Ugh. -1 .. :-(. > > > > > > I don't like the re-introduction of "agent" .. we took > this up and > > > dealt with it once before. > > > > > > We already use terms "service client" and "service provider". How > > > about something like this: A node is a single service client or a > > > single service provider, where a single client or service may use > > > one of more network endpoints (HTTP URLs, host/ports, JMS queues > > > etc.) to communicate. > > > > > > Sanjiva. > > > > > > ----- Original Message ----- > > > From: "David Booth" <dbooth@w3.org> > > > To: <www-ws-desc@w3.org> > > > Cc: "Anish Karmarkar" <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > > > Sent: Saturday, November 20, 2004 11:07 PM > > > Subject: Proposed definition of node > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Per the action item that Anish and I took at the F2F, here is a > > > > proposed definition of node that we suggest: [[ A node is an > > > > agent[1] that can transmit and/or receive message(s) > described in > > > > WSDL description(s) and process them. A node may be > accessible via > > > > more than one physical address or transport. ]] > > > > > > > > Reference > > > > 1. Agent: http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/#agent > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > David Booth > > > > W3C Fellow / Hewlett-Packard > > > > > > > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 22 November 2004 15:34:02 UTC