W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org > April 2004

Editorial changes (requested) and questions (to answer)

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 15:29:51 +0100
Message-Id: <2DDCB45F-978E-11D8-B21D-000393D13C9A@enigmatec.net>
Cc: David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Greg Ritzinger <GRitzinger@novell.com>, Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
To: public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org

Dear editors,

enclosed are my comments and questions on WS-CDL. These are all based 
on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Apr/0004.html

Cheers

Steve T


*** Editorial ***

General:
	Whenever an attribute from an XML schema fragment is used it is 
difficult to see it. It would be better to italise it so that it stands
	out.

Line 208:
	"interoperability and interactions between services within one 
business entity." becomes "interoperability and interactions required 
to ensure conformance between services within one business entity."

Lines 227-228:
	Can you provide an "e.g." to elaborate what Composability might mean?

Lines 232-235:
	Can you provide a defintion of "observable state"?

Line 238:
	"exchanged information as well." becomes "exchanged information."

Lines 239-240:
	Can you provide an example (an e.g.) to elaborate what might 
constitute an exception?

Line 264:
	"trully" becomes "truly"

Line 310:
	"where and how to exchange information" becomes "where and how 
information is exchanged"

Line 314:
	"results in exchange of messages" becomes "results in an exchange of 
messages"

Line 424:
	"these type of environment" becomes "these types of environments"

Lines 492-493:
	"This allows modeling how the destination of messages is determines, 
statically and dynamically," becomes
	"This allows the modeling of both static and dynamic message 
destinations ,"

Line 562:
	"The passing element allows ConsumerChannel to be sent" becomes "The 
passing element allows an instance of a ConsumerChannel to be sent"

Line 683:
	"defined in Cheography" becomes "defined in Choreography"

Lines 813-814:
	Difficult to understand and would benefit from an example.

Line 918:
	"defines In the below example," becomes "defined in the example below,"

Line 959-961:
	"A Request for Quote (RFQ) Choreography that involved a Buyer Role a 
request for a quotation for goods and services
	to a Supplier to which the Supplier resonding with either a 
"Quotation" or a "Decline to Quote" message, and"
	becomes
	"A Request for Quote (RFQ) Choreography that involves a Buyer Role a 
request for a quotation for goods and services
	to a Supplier to which the Supplier resonds with either a "Quotation" 
or a "Decline to Quote" message, and"

Line 962-963:
	"An Order Placement Choreography where the Buyer placed and order for 
goods or services and the Supplier  either accepted
	the order or rejected it"
	becomes
	"An Order Placement Choreography where the Buyer places an order for 
goods or services and the Supplier  either accepts
	the order or rejects it"

Line 1059-1060:
	"did not complete within a required timescale" becomes "did not 
complete within the required time"

Line 1121:
	"used to perform the actual work" becomes "used to description the 
actual work"

Line 1125:
	"A Ordering Structure" becomes "An Ordering Structure"

Line 1243:
	"have agreement of the outcome" becomes "have agreement on the outcome"

*** Questions ***

Lines 217-219
	Does this mean no WSDL is required? Does it mean same WSDL is 
required? Does it mean different WSDLs are possible?

Lines 269-270:
	Does this mean WSDL2.0 or earlier or both?

Lines 295, 299, 503 and more I'm sure:
	Do we need the term "business processes"? Can we just have "processes" 
since WS-CDL may be used in areas in which the
	term business process has less relevance.

Line 321-322:
	"Semantics allow the creation of descriptions that can record the 
semantic definitions of almost every single component in the model"
	If it is "almost" then what is excluded?

Line 441, 459:
	Dumb question from me. What is the relationship between 'role 
name="ncname"' and 'role type="qname"'. Maybe I don't understand what 
ncname is.
	I presume qname is qualified name relative to some schema.

Section 2.3.3 (Relationships):
	Would I be correct in thinking about a relationship as a static 
connection between processes?

Line 449 and 547-551:
	Does this mean that a channel is a web service and so they are coupled?

Line 534-535:
	Is there any reason not to have numbers other than 1 and unlimited?

Line 573:
	Is the <token type="tns:purchaseOrderID"/> the effective correlation 
id in  this example? Is this how correlation will be performed relative 
to channels?

Line 579-580:
	"that can influence the observable behavior" In what way can a WS-CDL 
document influence behavior since it is a description? Does this only 
apply
	to generation in which case I can see such a relationship?

Lines 602-607:
	Do these variables describe the relationship between messages? i.e. A 
is composed of specific parts of B
	Is this correlation?

Line 624:
	"a Channel Variable could contain information such as URL to which a 
message should be sent" Is this a "could"?

Line 674: What is a silent-action used for? Alas no example to 
illustrate.

Lines 739-745:
	Given the definition previously why is "part" valid? Is this an XQuery 
thing?

Line 748:
	Is "prescribes" the right word here?

Lines 872-878:
	How do I guard with more than one variable? Is there any notion of 
existential qualifier associated with this so that I can have a guard
	that simply says:
			If there exists an x, y and a z then ....

Section 2.4.8.1 Exception Block
	How is the guard in an Exception Block work unit related to the 
non-exceptional work units in the enclosing choreography?
	Are they always the same? Are they always non-overlapping? Are they 
unrelated? Is it user defined? What is the consequence
	of un-restriction?

Lines 1094-1099:
	What if there are no matches for an guarded work unit in an exception 
block?

Line 1177:
	Activity-Notation+
	This allows 1 or more not two or more.

Lines 1211-1212:
	Is it possible to model a one way receive?

Lines 1271-1283:
	Does this mean that some higher order messaging protocols allow states 
in the CDL to be inferred rather than captured explicitly? (i.e.
	if I know that when I send a message from A to B that B gets the 
message then I can infer something about the state of B relative to
	the receiving of that message.)

Lines 1312-1313:
	If align and initiateChoreography are not present what is the default 
behavior (true or false)?

Lines 1355-1359:
	Default behavior again?

Lines 1583-1596:
	Not sure why you use the terms "this" and "free" and what they might 
mean? Is it to indicate that the fromRole is the "this"
	and the toRole is "free based on being the initiator (i.e. 
Directionality?)
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 10:31:38 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 8 January 2008 14:20:09 GMT