Re: RM (was: Choreography State Definition)

Champion, Mike wrote:

> WSA is wrestling with trying to clarify the distinctions among
> "choreography", "MEP", etc.  "RM" seems to be in a similar state -- one
> might say that RM is a foundation on which choreography builds, or may say
> that the sequence of messages that implement an RM protocol can be described
> by a choreography language, or find some way of saying both.  
 >
 > I'm torn ... On one hand a RM protocol is a "choreography" ... But on the
 > other hand sensible people will not want to consider RM messages when
 > describing their application-level choreography.
 >

It is not a simple issue. However, wrt RM, I think it is useful to focus 
on its WSDL definition. At an abstract level, what you are modeling 
there is QOS. How this is realized in terms of message flow is dependent 
on the binding.

MEPs are a little different IMO because their whole purpose is to model 
message flow, although in a simpler form than choreography would.

--Jon