- From: Hugo Haas <hugo@w3.org>
- Date: Thu, 6 Feb 2003 10:50:52 +0100
- To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org, Duane Nickull <duane@xmlglobal.com>
- Message-ID: <20030206095050.GC1551@w3.org>
* Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> [2003年02月05日 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:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Thursday, 6 February 2003 04:51:05 UTC