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

RE: [ws-chor] 7/28/2003: Reqts 1.0 Comments

From: Yaron Goland <ygoland@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 12 Aug 2003 13:54:56 -0700
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <001501c361f2$ef2e8890$724111ac@bea.com>

The key terms are 'machine processable' and 'control logic'.

The directed graph describing the legal combinations of message sequences is
something that clearly should be machine processable. My own scenarios
require that the graph be machine processeable otherwise it would be
impossible to fulfill requirements like being able to generate a language
skeleton and being able to validate real time messaging behavior and its
compliance to the graph's definition.

Where I think the real confusion is coming is from the term 'control logic'.
What I specifically mean is that when a web service has an option for which
message it can send next then the logic the web service uses to choose must
not be expressed in the choreography definition.

To use one of our own examples a traveler sends a travel agent a request to
book a trip. The choreography says that the travel agent can either respond
immediate with 'trip booked' or they can respond with 'request received but
booking info will be sent later.' The choreography would only specify that
the travel agent has a choice of which message to send but will not provide
any actual control logic that would specify how the choice is made.

		Yaron

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Assaf Arkin
> Sent: Tuesday, July 29, 2003 6:37 PM
> To: jdart@tibco.com
> Cc: Monica Martin; Daniel_Austin@grainger.com; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [ws-chor] 7/28/2003: Reqts 1.0 Comments
>
>
>
> Jon Dart wrote:
>
> >
> > More problematic is the proposal to use prose annotation to
> replace or
> > to abstract away some constructs. Specifically, the proposal to
> > "remove control logic from the cDI .. the cDI programmers
> would have
> > to annotate the logic with human readable statements in order to
> > explain their intent." (3.2.3.6). IMO this is not something
> on which
> > we have consensus (at least not yet). In fact I think it is
> possibly
> > in conflict with some of the other requirements, such as
> D-CR-035 and
> > D-CR-038.
>
> Agreed. If it really boils down to being a description
> language that is
> not machine processable, then can't we just use UML?
>
> arkin
>
> >
> > --Jon
> >
>
>
>
>
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2003 19:30:55 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:00 UTC