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

Re: Partial executability/ determinism of a Chor description language

From: Anders W. Tell <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:46:17 +0200
Message-ID: <3EDBA989.8010406@toolsmiths.se>
To: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

Sorry to but in again, but the topic is too interesting for me to pass.

Ricky Ho wrote:

> If Choreography is a sequence of message exchange that every involved 
> party agree to follow, then it is a "contract".  Is WSDL a "contract" 
> ? (I think so). 

Its an interesting issue whether a specification is a contract and 
legally binding. Usually a business contracts involves two or more 
partners and a technical/ software/ programming language contract is not 
the same as a business agreement.

A few use cases:
* A WSDL file on my disk is usually not a contract and legally binding
* A signed WSDL is usually not a contract and legally binding when the 
signature indicates *authorship* and *Authenticity of Origin*.
* A signed WSDL with two parties where the signature indicates an 
*Intention* of the signers to adhere to the semantics in the WSDL is 
usually an agreement and legally binding.
* When the signers also adds that they have the *capacity/capability* to 
honour the semantics is even more legally binding and have a greater 
legal effect. (if you sign an agreement knowing the you cannot perform 
may get you into trouble).
* A reusable specification almost always contain only a party and a 
signature of *authorship* and *Authenticity of Origin*. Otherwise its 
not reusable but referencable.

My 2cents

Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 15:48:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:59 UTC