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

RE: simultaneous execution

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Jul 2003 16:33:10 -0700
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1CB3@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: jdart@tibco.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org

+1 from me too!!

I don't think I expressed what I said very clearly.  Let's recap.

I think that:
1. We should use one of the existing specs for identifying how to correlate
the set of related messages that belong to an instance of a choreography.
However our spec should specify which one it is for interoperability. The
also needs to be in development in either OASIS or the W3C to make sure
there are no IP issues
2. We should include in our own spec how to specify in a message the
choreography *type* that is being followed as it is directly related to what
we do.

I hope this makes sense ;)


-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Thursday, July 31, 2003 2:59 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: jdart@tibco.com; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: simultaneous execution

I'll have to side with Jon on this. Correlation is a generic and 
flexible mechanism that can also be used for that. A more specific 
mechanism would be too narrow in scope and would impose some 
limitations. Since we're dealing with WS in general, and not 
specifically PO scenarios, let's have the more generic mechanisms.


Burdett, David wrote:

>If all you have is a request response over the same channel, then I agree
>is not necessary unless that request response is part of a larger and
>But if you do need to do this, it is hardly rocket science and has also
>done in other specs such as ebXML messaging.
>What we really want to do is have one *definitive* way of providing this
>functionality. Now identifying which choreography you are following is
>definitely, IMO, part of our scope. However identifying that a set of
>messages are related is broader as you could have some sort of "correlation
>identifier" without specifing the choreography which being followed.
Received on Thursday, 31 July 2003 19:33:18 UTC

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