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

Re: Simple Choreography composition suggestion

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:48:35 -0700
Message-ID: <3F1727C3.3030305@intalio.com>
CC: public-ws-chor@w3.org

Ugo Corda wrote:

>>A choreography as I understand if is a Web service only if it has an 
>>entry point that is used by someone outside the choreography to start 
>>it. If the choreography starts when A sends a message to B (A and B 
>>being roles covered by the choreography), then it's not a Web service. 
>>But if the choreography starts by someone sending a message to A, where 
>>that role is not otherwise covered by the choreography, then that 
>>choreography is a Web service. It has an externally accessible entry 
>>point, or any other term we may opt to use.
>>Since it's a Web service, it can further be used in a larger 
>>choreography that may or may not be a Web service. Such a choreography 
>>would cover that additional role that starts the Web service choreography.
>Yes, that's basically the point I was making with my BPEL example. 
>It seems to me that, since choreographies are "made" of Web services, establishing this relationship between a choreography and the Web service that "encapsulates" that same choreography (if any) would provide a way of talking about choreographies composition.
That's one way of composition, but I'm not sure why it would be 
interesting. I mean, I can't think of this use case as something that 
would require yet another mechanism to describe it, given that you 
already have a language for expressing the process definition.


Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 18:48:45 UTC

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