Difference between revisions of "Talk:Second Life Grid Glossary"

From Second Life Wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Line 15: Line 15:
* DrS, I've reexpressed your additions under "Architecture" as '''architectural descriptions''' for some randomly-named "''message flow viewpoint''" (maybe it should refer to ''protocols'' or whatever, change as required).  The terms for "documents" are in flux --- '''ADV''' for "''architectural descriptions and views''" is just a placeholder, although it seems to work well.  Zero has already delivered those nice graphic '''ADV'''s that cover 2 or 3 different viewpoints, although the concerns aren't all that easy to identify in them precisely because they're all thrown in together.
* DrS, I've reexpressed your additions under "Architecture" as '''architectural descriptions''' for some randomly-named "''message flow viewpoint''" (maybe it should refer to ''protocols'' or whatever, change as required).  The terms for "documents" are in flux --- '''ADV''' for "''architectural descriptions and views''" is just a placeholder, although it seems to work well.  Zero has already delivered those nice graphic '''ADV'''s that cover 2 or 3 different viewpoints, although the concerns aren't all that easy to identify in them precisely because they're all thrown in together.
:: The central idea (as in IEEE-1471, which is a synthesis of a billion approaches prevalent in industry), is that "'''The Architecture'''" doesn't in fact exist outside of our heads, and is only communicated in specialised views which reflect the concerns and bias of specific parties.
:: The central idea (as in IEEE-1471, which is a synthesis of a billion approaches prevalent in industry), is that "'''The Architecture'''" doesn't in fact exist outside of our heads, and is only communicated in specialised views which reflect the concerns and bias of specific parties.
:: I am forced to admit that I find the bullet point above, simply, at some level incomprehensible. The architecture we are defining is not some platonic ideal. It is a set of formal, normative specifications which to the best of our human capacities  specify precisely and unambiguously how to build a conformant implementation. The specifications, hold no viewpoint, they have no biases. They may result from the fusion of many viewpoints, the clash and resolution of many stakeholders, but the architecture is deeply and fundamentally the normative documents which define it and '''nothing else.'''  Reifications and realizations  of the architecture may deviate from the specifications, but that doesn't change the architecture at all.  - [[User:Zha Ewry|Zha]]

Revision as of 14:38, 13 October 2007

  • The title needs changing to something less specific, like "Glossary", because Viewer is certainly not a component of a grid. --Morgaine Dinova 09:29, 25 September 2007 (PDT)
  • Added Services and Utilities to the list -- Zha Ewry 9/26/2007
  • I didn't want to define these since they reference the Linden "implementation" but it would be good to define what is meant by "Central Utilities" and Identity, location, and currency.--Burhop Piccard 17:55, 3 October 2007 (PDT)
  • Page renaming
As has been discussed on various occasions in AWGroupies and elsewhere, the parent page Components and Roles has evolved, and as a result it is no longer named appropriately. I would change it to one of the names that have been suggested (eg. AWG_Glossary) if I knew how to migrate its namespace tree as a unit, ie. including Talk, history etc, but I don't know how to do that. Anyone? --Morgaine Dinova 02:32, 12 October 2007 (PDT)
  • did that. refactored page into IEEE 1471 page and glossary page while i was at it. Dr Scofield 09:12, 12 October 2007 (PDT)
  • Thanks, that's hugely better. :-) --Morgaine Dinova 03:57, 13 October 2007 (PDT)
  • Reformatted page to use small '====' section headings instead of labels, so that we can edit them one at a time, more scalable. :P --Morgaine Dinova 03:57, 13 October 2007 (PDT)
  • DrS, I've reexpressed your additions under "Architecture" as architectural descriptions for some randomly-named "message flow viewpoint" (maybe it should refer to protocols or whatever, change as required). The terms for "documents" are in flux --- ADV for "architectural descriptions and views" is just a placeholder, although it seems to work well. Zero has already delivered those nice graphic ADVs that cover 2 or 3 different viewpoints, although the concerns aren't all that easy to identify in them precisely because they're all thrown in together.
The central idea (as in IEEE-1471, which is a synthesis of a billion approaches prevalent in industry), is that "The Architecture" doesn't in fact exist outside of our heads, and is only communicated in specialised views which reflect the concerns and bias of specific parties.


I am forced to admit that I find the bullet point above, simply, at some level incomprehensible. The architecture we are defining is not some platonic ideal. It is a set of formal, normative specifications which to the best of our human capacities specify precisely and unambiguously how to build a conformant implementation. The specifications, hold no viewpoint, they have no biases. They may result from the fusion of many viewpoints, the clash and resolution of many stakeholders, but the architecture is deeply and fundamentally the normative documents which define it and nothing else. Reifications and realizations of the architecture may deviate from the specifications, but that doesn't change the architecture at all. - Zha