Copyright © 2003 W3C® (MIT, ERCIM, Keio), All Rights Reserved. W3C liability, trademark, document use and software licensing rules apply.
This document is a glossary of terms found in the Web services architecture [WS Arch]. Additionally, it is intended for use by the other Working Groups in the Web Services Activity.
It is expected, especially in the first drafts, that the definitions contained in this document may conflict with other definitions, and that the reader may not agree with some of them. The process used to develop this document is explained in 1 Introduction: Terminology Process.
Terms are capitalized when it is meaningful, or otherwise are defined in lowercase.
Some definitions in this document are derived verbatim from external documents. In such cases, the source is indicated as a reference, listed in the 9 References section.
This section describes the status of this document at the time of its publication. Other documents may supersede this document. A list of current W3C publications and the latest revision of this technical report can be found in the W3C technical reports index at http://www.w3.org/TR/.
This is the third public Working Draft of the Web Services Glossary. It has been produced by the W3C Web Services Architecture Working Group, which is part of the W3C Web Services Activity. Since the last publication, the definition of Web service has been updated. Future work on this document will be spent merging concepts and definition from [WS Arch] and this document. Although the Working Group agreed to request publication of this document, this document does not represent consensus within the Working Group.
A list of open issues against this document is maintained by the Working Group.
Comments on this document should be sent to www-wsa-comments@w3.org (public archive). It is inappropriate to send discussion emails to this address.
Discussion of this document takes place on the public www-ws-arch@w3.org mailing list (public archive) per the email communication rules in the Web Services Architecture Working Group charter.
The process used to develop this document is explained in 1 Introduction: Terminology Process.
Patent disclosures relevant to this document may be found on the Working Group's patent disclosure page.
Publication as a Working Draft does not imply endorsement by the W3C Membership. This is a draft document and may be updated, replaced or obsoleted by other documents at any time. It is inappropriate to cite this document as other than 'work in progress.'
1 Introduction: Terminology Process
2 General Terms
3 Core concepts
4 Choreography definitions
5 Service Properties
6 SOAP Specific Definitions
6.1 Protocol Concepts
6.2 Data Encapsulation Concepts
6.3 Message Sender and Receiver Concepts
7 Security and Privacy Related Terms
8 Management Terms
9 References
A Acknowledgements (Non-Normative)
B Web Services Glossary Change Log (Non-Normative)
Terminology, and naming things in general, is always difficult. The Web Services Architecture Working Group's goal is to develop the architecture of Web services. After the Working Group gets a better understanding of the framework and context for a term, the naming discussion ought to be more straight forward.
Therefore, rather than get into terminology debates now, the following process is being followed:
As shared insight is gained into the nature of the architecture, it will be necessary to add specific detail to concepts, much as "choreography" and "routing" is being discussed now:
Focus these discussions on adding understanding.
Agree to the descriptive paragraphs, that is good enough for creating Working Drafts. Editors will capture the agreed paragraph and include it in Working Drafts. (Later, the text may be moved later to the glossary.)
Terminology can be debated just before we approve any text. To challenge terminology, cite a Working Draft usage of a term and propose alternatives, in email. If dictated by the need for timely progress, text may be approved and an issue posted against it using the email for reference.
The chairs will not consider usage of a term in unapproved materials as significant in establishing consensus on preferred terminology--in other words, prior Working Group use will not be considered as setting precedence.
Everyone should keep a personal glossary, either on paper or on your favorite computer. In your personal glossary, keep track of interesting definitions; they will help the editors when time comes to add the term to the team glossary.
In general, try not to use contested terms. At worse, make the term stand our with quotes "artifact" or d-artifact if it refers to a definitive paragraph.
Specifically, try not to use the term "artifact", at least not too much. While artifact is used in some circles for our purpose, it obviously is not universally understood as intended. Meanwhile, if terms are used that seem wrong or ill defined, add them to your glossary for discussion later.
If anyone or sub-group would like to work on a naming strategy, great. This would allow the Working Group to agree on principles of naming before having lots of point debates.
Editorial note | |
The Web Services Description Working Group changed some its terminology. This needs to be reflected. |
A legal entity — such as a person or a corporation — that may be the owner of agents that either seek to use Web services or provide Web services.
A physical or conceptual entity that can perform actions. Examples: people; companies; machines; running software. An actor can take on (or implement) one or more roles. An actor at one level of abstraction may be viewed as a role at a lower level of abstraction.
Program acting on behalf of another person, entity, or process. [Web Arch]
Generic term referring to a part of an architecture such as a component, connector, or data. Relationships between elements are constrained in order to achieve a desired set of architectural properties.
The software architecture of a program or computing system is the structure or structures of the system. This structure includes software components, the externally visible properties of those components, the relationships among them and the constraints on their use. (based on the definition of architecture in [Soft Arch Pract])
A software architecture is an abstraction of the run-time elements of a software system during some phase of its operation. A system may be composed of many levels of abstraction and many phases of operation, each with its own software architecture. [Fielding]
In the context of Web services, the term "asynchronous" is used informally to describe certain message exchange patterns. See synchronous for a more detailed treatment of this topic.
A distinct characteristic of an object. An object's attributes are said to describe the object. Objects' attributes are often specified in terms of their physical traits, such as size, shape, weight, and color, etc., for real-world objects. Objects in cyberspace might have attributes describing size, type of encoding, network address, etc. [WSIA Glossary]
An association between an interface, a concrete protocol and a data format. A binding specifies the protocol and data format to be used in transmitting messages defined by the associated interface. [WSD Reqs]
The mapping of an interface and its associated operations to a particular concrete message format and transmission protocol.
See also SOAP binding.
A system entity that is used by an end user to access a Web site. A browser provides a run-time environment for distributed application components on the client's device. [WSIA Glossary]
A component is a software object, meant to interact with other components, encapsulating certain functionality or a set of functionalities. A component has a clearly defined interface and conforms to a prescribed behavior common to all components within an architecture. [CCA T&D]
A component is an abstract unit of software instructions and internal state that provides a transformation of data via its interface. [Fielding]
A component is a unit of architecture with defined boundaries.
Configuration is the structure of architectural relationships among components, connectors, and data during a period of system run-time. [Fielding]
A transport layer virtual circuit established between two programs for the purpose of communication. [RFC 2616]
A connector is an abstract mechanism that mediates communication, coordination, or cooperation among components. [Fielding]
A logical sequence of messages exchanged between communicating parties.
The act of locating a machine-processable description of a Web service that may have been previously unknown and that meets certain functional criteria.
Any data that can be represented in a digital form. [UeB Glossary]
The automated exchange of any predefined and structured data for business among information systems of two or more organizations. [ISO/IEC 14662]
Editorial note | |
What is the relationship with a node? |
An association between a binding and a network address, specified by a URI, that may be used to communicate with an instance of a service. An end point indicates a specific location for accessing a service using a specific protocol and data format. [WSD Reqs]
A natural person who makes use of resources for application purposes. [X.800]
Editorial note | |
Needs to be clarified. Is the relationship with proxy accurate? |
A node that terminates a message on an inbound interface with the intent of presenting it through an outbound interface as a new message. Unlike a proxy, a gateway receives messages as if it were the final receiver for the message. Due to possible mismatches between the inbound and outbound interfaces, a message may be modified and may have some or all of its meaning lost during the conversion process. For example, an HTTP PUT has no equivalent in SMTP.
Note: a gateway may or may not be a SOAP node; however a gateway is never a SOAP intermediary, since gateways terminate messages and SOAP intermediaries relay them instead. Being a gateway is typically a permanent role, whilst being a SOAP intermediary is message specific.
Property of an interaction whose results and side-effects are the same whether it is done one or multiple times. [RFC 2616]
Safe interactions are inherently idempotent.
The boundary between components through which they interact.
A logical grouping of operations. An interface represents an abstract service type, independent of transmission protocol and data format. [WSD Reqs]
A node is an intermediary if a message from the service requester to the service provider (or vice versa) passes through the node.
See SOAP intermediary.
A metric is an attribute of an architectural component that may be defined during the configuration of the architectural component, can be measured during the use of this architecture component, and whose value may be evaluated.
The basic unit of communication between a Web service and a requester: data to be communicated to or from a Web service as a single logical transmission. [WSD Reqs]
See also SOAP message.
In general the definition of a message exchange pattern:
Describes the life cycle of a message exchange conforming to the pattern.
Describes the normal and abnormal termination of a message exchange conforming to the pattern.
Underlying protocol binding specifications can declare their support for one or more named MEPs.
The terms synchronous and asynchronous are sometimes used to characterize MEPs. Such usage is informal, and it is recommended that documents should not rely on these terms in any normative specification. See synchronous for a more detailed discussion of this.
A sytem entity which takes part into a message exchange. Examples are: requester, Web service, an intermediary, a gateway, a proxy, etc.
See SOAP node.
A set of messages related to a single Web service action. [WSD Reqs]
An identifier used to differentiate the data streams that a TCP can handle. [RFC 793]
See interface. [WSD Reqs]
A set of formal rules describing how to transmit data, especially across a network. Low level protocols define the electrical and physical standards to be observed, bit- and byte-ordering and the transmission and error detection and correction of the bit stream. High level protocols deal with the data formatting, including the syntax of messages, the terminal to computer dialogue, character sets, sequencing of messages etc. [FOLDOC]
Editorial note | |
Needs to be clarified; see gateway |
A node that relays a message between a requester and a Web service, appearing to the Web service to be the the requester.
A reference architecture is the generalized architecture of several end systems that share one or more common domains. The reference architecture defines the infrastructure common to the end systems and the interfaces of components that will be included in the end systems. The reference architecture is then instantiated to create a software architecture of a specific system. The definition of the reference architecture facilitates deriving and extending new software architectures for classes of systems. A reference architecture, therefore, plays a dual role with regard to specific target software architectures. First, it generalizes and extracts common functions and configurations. Second, it provides a base for instantiating target systems that use that common base more reliably and cost effectively. [Ref Arch]
A system entity that provides service and service provider information.
Editorial note | |
This definition is out of sync with the architecture document definition and needs to be reworked. |
The ability:
of a sender of a message to be able to determine whether a given message has been received by its intended receiver and to take compensating action in the event a given message has been determined not to have been received.
of the intended receiver of the message to be assured that it receives and processes a given message once and only once.
of both sender and receiver of a message to carry out (1) and (2) with a high probability of success in the face of inevitable, yet often unpredictable, network, system, and software failures.
An abstract entity that has a particular set of responsibilities or behaviors. A role must be implemented by one or more actors. Compare actor.
Property of an interaction which does not have any significance of taking an action other than retrieval of information. [RFC 2616]
Component capable of performing a task.
WSDL service: A collection of end points. [WSD Reqs]
See Web service.
Contract between a service provider and a requester regarding the attributes of a Web service and its usage.
A set of components which can be invoked, and whose interface descriptions can be published and discovered.
The entity that is responsible for requesting a service from a service provider.
A lasting interaction between system entities, often involving a user, typified by the maintenance of some state of the interaction for the duration of the interaction. [WSIA Glossary]
Such an interaction may not be limited to a single connection between the system entities.
A set of attributes representing the properties of a component at some point in time.
In the context of Web services, the term "synchronous" is used informally to describe certain message exchange patterns (MEPs).
In principle, MEPs may be arbitrarily complex, and may include various temporal relationships between messages. In practice, there is a small number of patterns for which the temporal relationships are well (if informally) understood. MEPs which describe temporally coupled or "lock-step" interactions are frequently referred to as "synchronous". Examples include RPC-style request-response interactions and some kinds of transactional exchanges. Other MEPs allow messages to be sent without precise sequencing, and these are described as "asynchronous". Examples include a flow of sensor event messages which need not be individually acknowledged, and an auction in which parties may submit bids at any time during the auction.
The terms "synchronous" and "asynchronous" are descriptive, and do not correspond precisely to properties of MEPs. Occasionally the terms may be associated with particular message transport features, such as the re-use of a session. While specific implementations may support such notions, a dependency on such a feature would violate protocol independence, and therefore be problematic.
It is also worth noting that in some computing platforms or message transport systems the terms "synchronous" and "asynchronous" are perfectly well defined. For example many APIs include "asynchronous I/O" support, and certain message-oriented middleware systems offer synchronous and asynchronous notification and delivery modes. However, Web services are defined as platform- and transport- independent, and relying on implementation-specific terms is likely to result in confusion.
Many (most?) Web services do not use published MEP's, but instead rely on more or less informal patterns and techniques. In such cases, the terms "synchronous" and "asynchronous" are sometimes used to indicate the type of informal pattern being used. They may indicate whether or not coordination and synchronization techniques such as correlation data and particular transport bindings are to be used.
In view of the informal way that the terms are used, it is recommended that documents should not rely upon the use of "synchronous" or "asynchronous" in any normative specification.
Editorial note | |
Relationship with component? |
An active element of a computer/network system. For example, an automated process or set of processes, a subsystem, a person or group of persons that incorporates a distinct set of functionality. [RFC 2828]
A period of time after which some condition becomes true if some event has not occurred. For example, a session that is terminated because its state has been inactive for a specified period of time is said to "time out". [WSIA Glossary]
A collection of interlinked Web pages, including a host page, residing at the same network location. [Web Term]
Editorial note | 2003-04-17 |
The definitions in this sections were extracted from the refactored version of the architecture document dated 2003-04-01. Work is underway to consolidate the two documents. Definitions have been omitted when identical. Not all of the definitions below belong to the glossary. This section is being reworked. |
Editorial note | |
In glossary and being worked on by the WSCWG |
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary |
Editorial note | |
Proposal: keep out of the glossary |
A deployed resource is a resource that exists in the physical world.
Editorial note | |
Proposal: keep out of the glossary |
Editorial note | |
Slightly different from the current glossary one, but close; defs need to be merged |
A registry contains service descriptions that service providers publish.
Editorial note | |
Relates to existing glossary defininition; defs need to be merged |
Editorial note | |
Relationship with identification; should merge both |
An identifier is a preferably opaque string of bits that may be used to associate with a resource.
Editorial note | |
Missing from glossary although it is used in several places; synonym of actor in the glossary. |
Editorial note | |
Very close to the definition of manageable; should probably be dropped from the glossary. |
Editorial note | |
Different from the definition of the MTF |
Editorial note | |
This is the glossary definition with an additional description of the role of messages in the architecture; the glossary should probably keep its current one, leaving additional description to the architecture document |
Editorial note | |
Significantly different from the glossary; MEPs need to be worked on by the WG |
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary; unsure about the second statement (e.g. SOAP headers just verify the first property); there is no definition of the concept of an intermediary in the architecture document |
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary; suggestion: do not include in the glossary |
A message description language allows the structure of messages to be described.
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary |
A message identifier is an identifier that uniquely identifies a message.
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary |
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary |
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary |
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary |
A resource is defined by [RFC 2396] to be anything that has an identifier.
Editorial note | |
Should probably be merged with glossary definition number one |
Editorial note | |
Defined in the glossary |
Editorial note | |
Relationship with service agreement and service level agreement? Fairly close to service agreement |
Editorial note | |
Missing from the glossary; the two sentences should probably be swapped. |
Editorial note: HH | |
This section holds choreography-related definitions. Eventually, it will be moved elsewhere. It is being worked on by the Web Services Choreography Working Group and their result will be integrated to this document, replacing the definitions below. |
Editorial note | |
Definition in progress: the above definition was the original proposal. |
The specification of the ordering of messages from one node's perspective or a collection of nodes. May or may not include Turing complete logic in determination of the message exchange pattern.
These are definitions that are designed to describe the ordering of business activities that send and/or receive messages. The definition of the flow between activities is not computationally complete (i.e., it cannot be executed). All of the messages are between independent business entities (participants). The participants may be across companies or within a company. There are two types of these processes: interface business processes and collaboration business processes.
Editorial note: HH | |
These should probably be migrated to the architecture document. |
Editorial note: HH | |
The SOAP definitions and the other definitions need to be made consistent. |
This section contains definitions of SOAP-specific terms that were taken from [SOAP12 Part1].
The formal set of conventions governing the format and processing rules of a SOAP message. These conventions include the interactions among SOAP nodes generating and accepting SOAP messages for the purpose of exchanging information along a SOAP message path.
The embodiment of the processing logic necessary to transmit, receive, process and/or relay a SOAP message, according to the set of conventions defined by this recommendation. A SOAP node is responsible for enforcing the rules that govern the exchange of SOAP messages. It accesses the services provided by the underlying protocols through one or more SOAP bindings.
A SOAP node's expected function in processing a message. A SOAP node can act in multiple roles.
The formal set of rules for carrying a SOAP message within or on top of another protocol (underlying protocol) for the purpose of exchange. Examples of SOAP bindings include carrying a SOAP message within an HTTP entity-body, or over a TCP stream.
An extension of the SOAP messaging framework typically associated with the exchange of messages between communicating SOAP nodes. Examples of features include "reliability", "security", "correlation", "routing", and the concept of message exchange patterns.
A template for the exchange of SOAP messages between SOAP nodes enabled by one or more underlying SOAP protocol bindings. A SOAP MEP is an example of a SOAP feature.
A software entity that produces, consumes or otherwise acts upon SOAP messages in a manner conforming to the SOAP processing model.
A collection of zero or more SOAP header blocks each of which might be targeted at any SOAP receiver within the SOAP message path.
An element information item used to delimit data that logically constitutes a single computational unit within the SOAP header. The type of a SOAP header block is identified by the fully qualified name of the header block element information item.
A collection of zero or more element information items targeted at an ultimate SOAP receiver in the SOAP message path.
A SOAP element information item which contains fault information generated by a SOAP node.
A SOAP node that transmits a SOAP message.
A SOAP node that accepts a SOAP message.
The set of SOAP nodes through which a single SOAP message passes. This includes the initial SOAP sender, zero or more SOAP intermediaries, and an ultimate SOAP receiver.
The SOAP sender that originates a SOAP message at the starting point of a SOAP message path.
A SOAP intermediary is both a SOAP receiver and a SOAP sender and is targetable from within a SOAP message. It processes the SOAP header blocks targeted at it and acts to forward a SOAP message towards an ultimate SOAP receiver.
The SOAP receiver that is a final destination of a SOAP message. It is responsible for processing the contents of the SOAP body and any SOAP header blocks targeted at it. In some circumstances, a SOAP message might not reach an ultimate SOAP receiver, for example because of a problem at a SOAP intermediary. An ultimate SOAP receiver cannot also be a SOAP intermediary for the same SOAP message.
To interact with a system entity in order to manipulate, use, gain knowledge of, and/or obtain a representation of some or all of a system entity's resources. [RFC 2828]
Protection of resources against unauthorized access; a process by which use of resources is regulated according to a security policy and is permitted by only authorized system entities according to that policy. [RFC 2828]
Any information used for access control purposes, including contextual information. [X.812]
Contextual information might include source IP address, encryption strength, the type of operation being requested, time of day, etc. Portions of access control information may be specific to the request itself, some may be associated with the connection via which the request is transmitted, and others (for example, time of day) may be "environmental". [RFC 2829]
A description of the type of authorized interactions a subject can have with a resource. Examples include read, write, execute, add, modify, and delete. [WSIA Glossary]
The set of attributes that together define a user's access to a given service. Each service may define a unique set of attributes to define an account. An account defines user or system access to a resource or service. [ProvServ Glossary]
The quality or state of being anonymous, which is the condition of having a name or identity that is unknown or concealed. [RFC 2828]
A service that reliably and securely records security-related events producing an audit trail enabling the reconstruction and examination of a sequence of events. Security events could include authentication events, policy enforcement decisions, and others. The resulting audit trail may be used to detect attacks, confirm compliance with policy, deter abuse, or other purposes.
To positively verify the identity of a user, device, or other entity in a computer system, often as a prerequisite to allowing access to resources in a system. [X.811]
The process of determining, by evaluating applicable access control information, whether a subject is allowed to have the specified types of access to a particular resource. Usually, authorization is in the context of authentication. Once a subject is authenticated, it may be authorized to perform different types of access. [STG]
Assuring information will be kept secret, with access limited to appropriate persons. [NSA Glossary]
Data that is transferred to establish a claimed principal identity. [X.800]
A value computed with a cryptographic algorithm and appended to a data object in such a way that any recipient of the data can use the signature to verify the data's origin and integrity. (See: data origin authentication service, data integrity service, digitized signature, electronic signature, signer.) [RFC 2828]
Cryptographic transformation of data (called "plaintext") into a form (called "ciphertext") that conceals the data's original meaning to prevent it from being known or used. If the transformation is reversible, the corresponding reversal process is called "decryption", which is a transformation that restores encrypted data to its original state. [RFC 2828]
Assuring information will not be accidentally or maliciously altered or destroyed. [NSA Glossary]
The process whereby a user presents credentials to an authentication authority, establishes a simple session, and optionally establishes a rich session. [WSIA Glossary]
Method by which the sender of data is provided with proof of delivery and the recipient is assured of the sender's identity, so that neither can later deny having processed the data. [INFOSEC Glossary]
A system entity whose identity can be authenticated. [X.811]
A set of rules and practices that specify or regulate how a system entity or organization collects, processes (uses) and discloses users' personal data as a result of the interaction with a service.
A plan and set of principles for an administrative domain and its security domains that describe the security services that a system is required to provide to meet the needs of its users, the system elements required to implement the services, and the performance levels required in the elements to deal with the threat environment. A complete security architecture for a system addresses administrative security, communication security, computer security, emanations security, personnel security, and physical security, and prescribes security policies for each. A complete security architecture needs to deal with both intentional, intelligent threats and accidental threats. A security architecture should explicitly evolve over time as an integral part of its administrative domain's evolution. [RFC 2828]
An environment or context that is defined by security models and a security architecture, including a set of resources and set of system entities that are authorized to access the resources. One or more security domains may reside in a single administrative domain. The traits defining a given security domain typically evolve over time. [RFC 2828]
A process (or a device incorporating such a process) that can be used in a system to implement a security service that is provided by or within the system.
A schematic description of a set of entities and relationships by which a specified set of security services are provided by or within a system. [RFC 2828]
A set of rules and practices that specify or regulate how a system or organization provides security services to protect resources. Security policies are components of security architectures. Significant portions of security policies are implemented via security services, using security policy expressions. [RFC 2828]
A mapping of principal identities and/or attributes thereof with allowable actions. Security policy expressions are often essentially access control lists. [STG]
A processing or communication service that is provided by a system to give a specific kind of protection to resources, where said resources may reside with said system or reside with other systems, for example, an authentication service or a PKI-based document attribution and authentication service. A security service is a superset of AAA services. Security services typically implement portions of security policies and are implemented via security mechanisms. [RFC 2828]
Editorial note: HH | |
Need to work on consistency. See comments to the MTF. |
Interface through which administration capabilities are offered.
Editorial note | |
Needs more work; in progress. |
The property that a service offered by a service provider can be consumed by a service consumer. The service is said to be available to the consumer.
A measurement interval type such that a measurement is calculated relative to the last time the service status was changed to "Up".
A collection of properties which may be changed. A property may influence the behavior of an entity.
To cause a desired change in state. Management systems may control the lifecycle of entities or information flow such as messages.
Editorial note | |
In progress. |
Messages that indicate a problem, a lifecycle state change or a state change.
Editorial note | |
In progress; why uniquely? |
The set of stage between creation and demise of a component.
Interface through which management capabilities are offered.
Editorial note | |
Circular |
Editorial note | |
Circular definition; still under work |
Editorial note | |
Obscure |
Editorial note | |
Is that needed? |
An operation that performs management.
Editorial note | |
There was some discussions about using another term for this; in progress. Note that metric is already defined. |
Raw atomic, unambiguous, information, e.g. number of invocations.
Editorial note | |
In progress |
Value calculated with a formula based on metrics, e.g. the verage response time during the last hour of execution.
The monitoring of an entity to ascertain its operational speed, utilization, and efficiency.
The monitoring and tracking of resources used by a running entity.
Configuring, securing and/or deploying of systems or applications enabling a security domain.
Agreement between a service provider and a service consumer concerning the quality and usage of the service provided.
A measurement interval type such that a measurement is calculated for a time interval relative to now, i.e. the last 10 minutes, the last hour.
Editorial note | |
In progress. |
Editorial note | |
Circular. |
A measurement interval type such that a measurement is calculated for a time interval between two time stamps.
Service that reliably and securely records usage-related events producing an audit trail enabling the reconstruction and examination of a sequence of events. Usage events could include resource allocation events and resource freeing events.
Editorial note | |
What is the difference with usage auditing? |
This document has been produced by the Web Services Architecture Working Group.
Members of the Working Group are (at the time of writing, and by alphabetical order): Geoff Arnold (Sun Microsystems, Inc.), Daniel Austin (W. W. Grainger, Inc.), Mukund Balasubramanian (Infravio, Inc.), Mike Ballantyne (EDS), Abbie Barbir (Nortel Networks), David Booth (W3C), Mike Brumbelow (Apple), Doug Bunting (Sun Microsystems, Inc.), Greg Carpenter (Nokia), Tom Carroll (W. W. Grainger, Inc.), Jun Chen (MartSoft Corp.), Alex Cheng (Ipedo), Michael Champion (Software AG), Martin Chapman (Oracle Corporation), Ugo Corda (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation), Roger Cutler (ChevronTexaco), Jonathan Dale (Fujitsu), Suresh Damodaran (Sterling Commerce(SBC)), Glen Daniels (Macromedia), James Davenport (MITRE Corporation), Paul Denning (MITRE Corporation), Zulah Eckert (Hewlett-Packard Company), Gerald Edgar (The Boeing Company), Chris Ferris (IBM), Shishir Garg (France Telecom), Hugo Haas (W3C), Hao He (The Thomson Corporation), Dave Hollander (Contivo), Yin-Leng Husband (Hewlett-Packard Company), Mario Jeckle (DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology), Mark Jones (AT&T), Tom Jordahl (Macromedia), Heather Kreger (IBM), Sandeep Kumar (Cisco Systems Inc), Steve Lind (AT&T), Mark Little (Arjuna), Hal Lockhart (OASIS), Michael Mahan (Nokia), Francis McCabe (Fujitsu), Michael Mealling (VeriSign, Inc.), Jeff Mischkinsky (Oracle Corporation), Himagiri Mukkamala (Sybase, Inc.), Don Mullen (TIBCO Software, Inc.), Eric Newcomer (IONA), Mark Nottingham (BEA Systems), David Orchard (BEA Systems), Srinivas Pandrangi (Ipedo), Leo Parker (Computer Associates), Mark Potts (Talking Blocks, Inc), Waqar Sadiq (EDS), Igor Sedukhin (Computer Associates), Hans-Peter Steiert (DaimlerChrysler Research and Technology), Katia Sycara (Carnegie Mellon University), Bryan Thompson (Hicks & Associates, Inc.), Steve Vinoski (IONA), Jim Webber (Arjuna), Prasad Yendluri (webMethods, Inc.), Jin Yu (MartSoft Corp.), Sinisa Zimek (SAP).
Previous members of the Working Group were: Assaf Arkin (Intalio, Inc.), Mark Baker (Idokorro Mobile, Inc. / Planetfred, Inc.), Tom Bradford (XQRL, Inc.), Allen Brown (Microsoft Corporation), Dipto Chakravarty (Artesia Technologies), Alan Davies (SeeBeyond Technology Corporation), Ayse Dilber (AT&T), Colleen Evans (Sonic Software), Daniela Florescu (XQRL Inc.), Sharad Garg (Intel), Joseph Hui (Exodus/Digital Island), Marcel Jemio (DISA), Timothy Jones (CrossWeave, Inc.), Jim Knutson (IBM), Mark Hapner (Sun Microsystems, Inc.), Michael Hui (Computer Associates), Nigel Hutchison (Software AG), Bob Lojek (Intalio, Inc.), Anne Thomas Manes (Systinet), Jens Meinkoehn (T-Nova Deutsche Telekom Innovationsgesellschaft), Nilo Mitra (Ericsson), Joel Munter (Intel), Henrik Frystyk Nielsen (Microsoft Corporation), Duane Nickull (XML Global Technologies), David Noor (Rogue Wave Software), Kevin Perkins (Compaq), Fabio Riccardi (XQRL, Inc.), Don Robertson (Documentum), Darran Rolls (Waveset Technologies, Inc.), Krishna Sankar (Cisco Systems Inc), Jim Shur (Rogue Wave Software), Patrick Thompson (Rogue Wave Software), Scott Vorthmann (TIBCO Software, Inc.).
The people who have contributed to discussions on the www-ws-arch public mailing list are also gratefully acknowledged.
2003-07-30 | HH | Updated definition of Web service |
2003-05-12 | HH | Updated definitions of synchronous and asynchronous and abstract. |
2003-05-07 | HH | Integrated definitions of synchronous and asynchronous. |
2003-05-06 | HH | Integrated comments from Roger. |
2003-04-23 | HH | Merged sections "Architecture Terms", "General Terms" and "Roles". |
2003-04-17 | HH | Added core concepts from the architecture document. |
2003-04-01 | HH | Changed definition of binding as per Jean-Jacques's email; updated the definition of service requester to match the one in the Web Services Architecture draft in an attempt to fix the definition of client — will need a major reconciliation between the two documents. |
2003-03-11 | HH | Incorporated management definitions from the MTF. Removed prior information definition. Integrated comments from DaviB and from Jean-Jacques. |
2003-02-17 | HH | Renamed a-priori into prior. For details, see Hugo's email and issue 1. |
2003-02-10 | HH | ebXML glossary review; incorporated changes: set 1, definition, set 2 |
2003-02-04 | HH | Added new definition of discovery from David Booth |
2003-02-03 | HH | Added definition of loose coupling |
2003-01-31 | HH | Added definition of safe and idempotent |
2003-01-29 | HH | Incorporated face-to-face changes |
20021202 | DBO | Added "Agent" |
2002-11-14 | HH | First TR version |