Re: Glossary - Working UEB Stuff

* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <[email protected]> [2003-02-05 12:30-0600]
> Basically agree with all your comments except maybe one.  That one is
> the use case / usage scenario thing.  I think that if it's not in the
> glossary it should at least be spelled out pretty clearly in the Use
> Case doc itself.  I personally, being somewhat oriented to use cases,
> would like to see the terms included in the glossary and the general
> subject of use cases discussed, or at least referenced somehow in the
> document.

The usage scenarios document reads:

|   It is a collection of usage scenarios and use cases which illustrate  
|   the use of Web services, and which are used to generate requirements  
|   for the Web services architecture, as well as to evaluate existing
|   technologies.

They could be defined here.

> Some more specifics, basically no arguments:
> 
> Component - Personally I like the editor's doc definition least of all
> because it doesn't say very much.

Hmm... the latest one says that a component is also a unit of
architecture. I think that it is valuable, but maybe needs
improvement.

> Choreography - Weeellll - kind of agree about passing stuff along but
> surely there is going to be SOME mention of choreography in the
> document.  If so, it seems to me that at least one basic definition
> would be kind of nice.

This is what I meant when I talked about harmonization with the
architecture document. We should probably extract from the new version
a basic, general definition, and keep the more detailed ones around
for WSCWG investigation.

Regards,

Hugo

-- 
Hugo Haas - W3C
mailto:[email protected] - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/