[Nsi-wg] WS Terminoloty (Re: Call tomorrow)

[Tomohiro Kudoh]

Hi John and all,

I think Web Services may be used for NSI implementation, but not
mandatory. Therefore, I do not think the architecture document should
strictly follow the WS terminology. But using defined WS terms for
different meanings in the architecture doc may introduce confusion. So,
understanding WS terms is very important and John’s doc is very helpful.

I read the WS document John referred "http://www.w3.org/TR/ws-arch/".
Here are some comments:

- "Agent" is the right word to denote a service component which
exchanges messages defined by NSI. In the previous discussions, we used 
"agent" to denote a module inside a component. But this should be
changed (as John explained).

- The word "actor" seems to be used rather carelessly in the WS document.
It only appears in specific parts (MEP part and the appendix on Web
Services Security). So I think one (or two) of the authors of the
document used this term without careful consideration. In addition,
"actor" has a specific meaning in SOAP. So I think it is better to avoid
using this term.

- The terms "provider" and "requester" explain the role of an agent (or
an entity, but I think we can forget about entity here) with respect to
a service. One agent can be a "requester agent" or a "provider agent"
depending on the roles. This is like one company can be a "buying
company" or a "selling company" in commercial transactions. One agent
may be a provider agent of one service and requester agent of another
service (which is provided by another provider) at a same time.

- The term "identifier" is explained as "an identifier should be
realized (as) a URI" in the WS document. We need to be careful to use
the term "identifier".

Regards,

Tomohiro

On Tue, 19 Jan 2010 14:58:45 -0500
John Vollbrecht <jrv at internet2.edu> wrote:

> I attach a document that describes NSI in WS terms.  I would like to  
> discuss it tomorrow on the call.    I am thinking perhaps we should  
> stick to WS terminology and concepts for the first draft at least in  
> order to make progress.
> 
> I have taken the terminology from reading WS doc.  It turns out to be  
> slightly different than what we were using before, mostly in  
> emphasis.  In particular, the distinction between agent and actor is a  
> little fuzzier, with the interface being between requestor agent that  
> wants the service for its owner and provider agent that supplies the  
> service.  Actors come in only when discussing complex interactions  
> between entities in particular infrastructure implementations.
> 
> I think this is helpful also in thinking about service plane and what  
> it is, though this doc does not deal with that.
> 
> John
>