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

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

From: Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>
Date: Mon, 28 Jul 2003 16:11:29 -0600
Message-ID: <3F259F91.3070807@sun.com>
To: jdart@tibco.com
CC: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org

Jon Dart wrote:

> Monica Martin wrote:
>
>> A CDI can be executable.
>> Annotation seems to specify a solution to correlation or associated 
>> items.
>> Therefore, I think we should concentrate on those terms, rather than 
>> the use
>> of annotation, which is a solution that BEA has chosen to use to 
>> implement
>> some of these functions.
>
>
> The use case describing a cDI makes clear that it's not executable; in 
> fact, it does not even correspond to an abstract processs description 
> (in WS-BPEL).

mm1: Then we should separate machine sensible and executable.

>
> IMO annotation by itself is not problematic - in fact having text 
> annotations is a requirement (D-CR-015), which I'd certainly support.
>
> 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.

mm1: Agreed on the concern.

>
> --Jon
>
>
Received on Monday, 28 July 2003 17:58:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:25 GMT