W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2003

Re: Terminology - What is a process? Was: Internal processes and/or external choreographies (was RE: Ev ents and States ...

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2003 13:18:29 -0700
Message-ID: <3E9C6915.3010507@intalio.com>
To: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
CC: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>, "'Howard N Smith'" <howard.smith@ontology.org>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

>
>
>>
>> Following your comment that "everything" is a process, shouldn't we
>> expect that any 100% pi-c based solution will follow the same fate of
>> other "uni-cratic" systems like Java, C, SQL, COBOL, ... i.e. severe
>> limitations/complexities outside the realm of applications for which
>> they were designed (e.g. EJBs versus Classes).
>
I know SQL and COBOL are severly limited and not quite useful in the 
business world. Still I would be willing to claim success if we get one 
choreography definition for every COBOL program or SQL statement used in 
an enterprise application. When we get to that point, let's revisit the 
issue and ask where we've gone wrong ;-)


    With respect to pi-c no matter how I stear at it I don't see an
    explicit
    choreography specification. All I see is the specification of the
    behavior of agents which are capable of communicating which each other.
    If you take the example: _xy.0 | x(u)._uv.0 | _xz.0, it expresses the
    behavior of each agent and the composition "point" but by no means the
    "choreography" is "visible" there. Furthermore, pi-calculus seem to be
    limited to request/response message exchange patterns (I'd be
    curious to
    know how one would model complex MEPs).


Isn't that what B2B and conversation theory is all about?

Pi-calculus is a lower level language. It depicts one-way exchanges from 
which you build MEPs. At least I am not advocating a pi-calculus 
language, I am advocating a higher-level language that can captialize on 
WSDL MEPs. Not a problem since all these MEPs can be reduced to their 
pi-calculus formalism.

arkin
Received on Tuesday, 15 April 2003 16:20:56 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:58 UTC