RE: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (long)

Hi Jacek,

Interesting point... when faulting do we want to/need to provide a standard
way to identify both the role and the node that faulted?

On the substantive issue, I prefer the narrative of the NoActor version, but
I could live without changing the attribute name to role - although that
would perhaps leave some potential for confusion.

Regards

Stuart


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jacek Kopecky [mailto:jacek@systinet.com]
> Sent: 30 January 2002 14:38
> To: Marc Hadley
> Cc: xml-dist-app@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed rewrite of Part 1, section 2 (long)
> 
> 
>  +1 on the NoActor version (with renaming from actor to role).
>  Obviously, section 4 will be affected by the change, too. What 
> may not be obvious is that faultactor should also be renamed to 
> faultrole if we go this route.
> 
>                    Jacek Kopecky
> 
>                    Senior Architect, Systinet (formerly Idoox)
>                    http://www.systinet.com/
> 
> 
> 
> On Mon, 21 Jan 2002, Marc Hadley wrote:
> 
>  > All,
>  > 
>  > The editors have been tasked with improving the overall 
> readability of
>  > the specification and as part of this we would like to 
> propose a rewrite
>  > of section 2. This section has been the subject of a great deal of
>  > "micro-editing" and we are concerned not to lose any 
> detail that may
>  > have been hard fought over in the past. To aid your review we are
>  > including redlined versions of each proposal that show the 
> differences
>  > between the current WD and the proposed rewrite. The 
> redlined version's
>  > filenames are suffixed with "_RL".
>  > 
>  > The editors would actually like to propose 2 alternative 
> rewrites, both
>  > of which remove the term "anonymous actor" which is not 
> used elewhere in
>  > the specification and is not in the glossary:
>  > 
>  > (i) The first "SoapProcessingModel.htm" and 
> "SoapProcessingModel_RL.htm"
>  > is the less radical of the two and maintains the current 
> terminology
>  > around SOAP actor and roles.
>  > 
>  > (ii) The second "SoapProcessingModelNoActor.htm" and
>  > SoapProcessingModelNoActor_RL.htm" proposes more radical 
> changes. The
>  > specification's current use of the word actor is 
> counter-intuitive, e.g.
>  > we speak about SOAP nodes assuming roles named by SOAP 
> actors. In real
>  > life roles are not named by actors, actors play roles and 
> this can lead
>  > to some confusing wording. The second rewrite assumes that 
> we rename the
>  > "actor" attribute to "role".
>  > 
>  > Marc (on behalf of the other editors: Gudge, Jean-Jacques 
> and Henrik)
>  > 
>  > 
> 
>

Received on Wednesday, 30 January 2002 15:34:44 UTC