From: Pat Hayes ([email protected])
Date: 11/29/01
>I am composing responses to the recent e-mail messages regarding DQL and
>am planning on sending out a series of such messages. Here is a simple
>one to get started.
>
>SERVER AND CLIENT
>
>I proposed referring to the agent sending the query as the "client" and
>the agent receiving the query as the "server".
>
>Pat said:
>
>> BTW, I really
>> dislike that term 'server'; it suggests an asymmetry between the
>> querier and queried that isn't likely to survive in the broader SW
>> world, I think.
>
>For me, it was simply a matter of convenience to refer to the "query
>answering agent" as the "server" and to the "query asking agent" as the
>"client". Some such shorthand names are useful, and those terms are the
>ones typically used regarding knowledge servers and data servers. I
>don't care much what names we use, although "querier" and "queried"
>don't seem to me to be improvements.
I would agree with you there, to be sure; I didn't mean to suggest
that as an alternative terminology. My concern was just a worry that
this usage is going to be used in a sense which suggests that clients
and servers are different *kinds* of agents, which would be a pity.
For example, consider a situation (which is likely to arise very
soon, if not already) where a simple query/answer protocol goes on
between a Kbase A and an agent B, but where B's role is to act as a
query-handler for a more sophisticated kind of query coming from C,
eg where C is asking about things like the numbers of answers, which
B is compiling into a process of simple queries and responses. What
is B here? In the B/C exchange, it is a server; in the A/B exchange,
it is a client. If we use these terms as *classifications* (which
their traditional usage would suggest), then the role of
intermediaries like B becomes cloudy. Whereas I think that agents
like B are likely to have a very important and central role in
web-based query services; and in fact that our own discussions on
this list suggest this possibility already.
So, in a word, as long as we are clear that something can be a client
from one perspective but a server from another, and there is nothing
paradoxical or mysterious about this, then fine.
Pat
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
IHMC (850)434 8903 home
40 South Alcaniz St. (850)202 4416 office
Pensacola, FL 32501 (850)202 4440 fax
[email protected]
http://www.coginst.uwf.edu/~phayes
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : 04/02/02 EST