[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: Re: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is.
I would start with an assessment of two real legitimate definiitions, to see where they fit. 1) a component is a part of a composite - something bigger was composed of it. This works for messages and processes. no problem. 2) a component is a packaging of "functionality" - it (a) "does" something more than it (b) "represents" something. This causes dissonance, because our closest-to-home examples are things like stereo components or auto components. They all "do" something - they have jobs that harmonize with the jobs of other compoents to do something more complex. But the fact that the functions are componentized makes it all intellectually manageable (divide anc conquer). (1) and (2b) both fit, but not (2a). Now, let's make it fit. The whole idea behind SOAP is to make an XML "representation" of invocations (activation of processes that do something). XML, in the SOAP content, is not about data - its about process - and the data is nothing more than the arguments that guide the process. Therefore I think we can reconcile our problems with (2a) if anything we define as a component EITHER: 1) is a truly reusable chunk of representation of anything OR 2) is a representation of functionality invocation. That's my two cents Jon Farmer ----- Original Message ----- From: John McClure <email@example.com> To: ebXML Core <firstname.lastname@example.org> Sent: Friday, April 20, 2001 2:32 PM Subject: RE: Just what is a Core Component? Well, it depends on what "is" is. > > "A core component is a data item or aggregate of data items that goes into > > a higher level assembly of data items and remains the same across all of > > the business contexts in which it is used." > > I think Sally has provided a definition that is perfectly in-tune with the > published definition for a "core component" but.... It sure looks like the > definition for a "data structure", something that's been around since the > days of FORTRAN. > > Nevertheless, I'm glad this is getting cleared up, but it would be nice if > terms were used that had a more modern -- context -- such as "resource-type" > does wrt Internet applications development. I suggest it's a good thing to > stay as high on the semantic stack as possible. To me, defining data > structures seems too low-level. > > Regards, > John > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word > "unsubscribe" in the body to: email@example.com >
Powered by eList eXpress LLC