RE: WS Choreography Model Overview

Nick and David,

Here are my first comments after a quick reading of your document (listed by line numbers).

75:
This seems to imply that all messages handles by the choreography are SOAP, which I don't think was the intent.

152-154:
WSDL port types are mentioned as example of physical structure, which is confusing since they are, according to WSDL, abstract ports.

196:
The table lists the "Message Structure" and "Technology used" entries for Portable as "Defined". These entry names could be understood as aspects that are actually defined only at the Concrete level.

324:
"Import" is a concept used in XML Schema, WSDL and BPEL. In all those cases its semantics is associated to bringing in names from namespaces different than the current one, so that they can never replace existing names.

357:
A Concrete Channel Type is defined to be the same as Portable Channel Type. It seems to me that it should be different and reflect the different type of information available at the Concrete level.

496:
Here it says that at run time new information is added to a Concrete Interaction Channel Variable. It seems to me that the information should be already available at the Concrete level.

Overall:
I am still unconvinced that defining abstract choreographies is worth the effort. If they were not defined, no new syntax (or just a minimum amount) would be required for Types, Messages, Operations, Interactions/Channels, Reliability, Semantics, etc., since those constructs would already be available at the WSDL abstract level.

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Nickolas Kavantzas
> Sent: Friday, December 05, 2003 8:00 PM
> To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: WS Choreography Model Overview
> 
> 
> 
> As promised, here is the editor's draft of the WS 
> Choreography Model Overview.
> 
> 
> The document can be found at:
> 
> 
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003Dec/0009.html
> 
> 
> 
> --
> Regards,
> 
> Nick and David
> 
>

Received on Monday, 8 December 2003 16:58:08 UTC