Re: Action item on document work from F2F
Christopher B Ferris <[email protected]>
| Newsgroups | gmane.comp.web.services.ws-arch |
|---|---|
| Message-ID | <OFE8934F6C.97A9FA77-ON85256CD2.0045A6BD-85256CD2.00461F8A@us.ibm.com> |
Agreed, we'll want to be sure that the definitions are consistent. If they need to be changed, then let's address those individually. Cheers, Christopher Ferris Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture email: [email protected] phone: +1 508 234 3624 [email protected] wrote on 02/18/2003 09:16:15 AM: > > * Newcomer, Eric <[email protected]> [2003-02-05 17:33-0500] > > Attached is an update to the WSA document based on an initial attempt at exploring some of the > suggestions from the face to face document breakout team. Also attached is a diagram to > illustrate the service oriented architecture concept, which I'll explain presently. > [..] > > The proposal was reviewed and discussed briefly during the editors' concall today. It was noted > that the concepts section overlaps with the glossary and we would need to ensure consistency > across them and ensure the right topics and level of detail of is included for each. > > I started reviewing the document more closely while I trying to > fulfill the following action item: > > ACTION: Hugo to do Glossary - missing definitions from document in > Glossary > > The Concepts section redefines terms that are in the glossary, and > defines additional ones, as you mentioned. > > An example is feature: > > | A feature is a subset of the architecture that relates to a > | particular requirement or larger scale property. > > while the glossary reads: > > | 1. An abstract piece of functionality. > | 2. See also SOAP feature. > > or the infamous agent definition. > > I think that in order to make progress on this, it is important to > know why this draft ended up with different definitions and how > different they are (not to underline the importance of having records > :-). > > That way we could see which characteristics of a concept are > important, which ones we have consensus on and which ones we need to > discuss. > > Regards, > > Hugo > > -- > Hugo Haas - W3C > mailto:[email protected] - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/ >