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

Re: Revised: Mission Statement

From: Andrew Berry <andyb@whyanbeel.net>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:11:53 +1000
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Message-Id: <736050E4-B797-11D7-9009-0003936786BC@whyanbeel.net>

> Jon Dart wrote:
> > Several statements have been made about the kind of model we don't 
> want.
> > But IMO it is not really clear enough what we do want.
> >
> > If I understand things correctly (a fairly big "if"), one 
> requirement is
> > that there be basically one model for both client & server (or peer 
> and
> > its peer, if you want to be more egalitarian). This means that I 
> don't
> > need to model the messages one party sends and have a parallel model 
> of
> > what the other party is receiving. The choreography description I 
> expose
> > to my partners should be sufficient for them to interact with me. 
> This
> > doesn't imply that there's one big model of all participants' message
> > flows - in fact I think you don't want this. But it does imply that 
> as
> > party A directly interacting with party B, both parties have a model
> > they can both view and base their interactions on (could include > 2
> > participants also).

One of the issues that has come up for me in the past is that of 
business contracts.  Business-to-business interaction tends to be 
governed by legally-binding, written or unwritten contracts that 
specify the required roles and behaviour of all participants.  Is a 
choreography an electronic representation of a business contract for 
the interaction?   If so, then perhaps model visibility/scope should be 
defined by the contract boundaries.


Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 10:10:11 UTC

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