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

RE: Partial executability/ determinism of a Chor description language

From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
Date: Tue, 3 Jun 2003 01:06:02 -0400
To: <simon.2.thompson@bt.com>, <opensource@toolsmiths.se>, <riho@cisco.com>
Cc: <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <018201c3298d$e6e5e720$1a6e100a@JJD>

Two more centimes about this topic,

The purpose of ws-choreography is to automate as much as possible the
creation of "contracts". There will be so many of them created, and so
many variations over time, industries and geographies that a framework
like ws-chor is needed. I like Bob's graduation because it gives us the
opportunity to define the scope very precisely.

A contract is almost always based on a set of very precise semantics and
metrics (at least the contracts that will be addressed by ws-chor). Sure
we could think of contracts like "you will deliver a Pullitzer-price
winning book in June 2004" but I don't think they fall under the scope
of ws-chor.

The advantage of using a machine processable format (which I don't
consider very different from the regular contracts) it is that one can
then also automate the monitoring of the contract excecution.

Overall, simplifying/automating the production of contracts and
automating their execution would yield significant productivity gains
across the supply chain.



>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
>>On Behalf Of simon.2.thompson@bt.com
>>Sent: Montag, 2. Juni 2003 19:24
>>To: opensource@toolsmiths.se; riho@cisco.com
>>Cc: david.burdett@commerceone.com; public-ws-chor@w3.org
>>Subject: RE: Partial executability/ determinism of a Chor description
>>+1 (I think people say here)
>>I don't think there is anything else to say!
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Anders W. Tell [mailto:opensource@toolsmiths.se]
>>> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 8:46 PM
>>> To: Ricky Ho
>>> Cc: Burdett, David; public-ws-chor@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Partial executability/ determinism of a Chor
>>> description language
>>> 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
>>> * 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
>>> not reusable but referencable.
>>> My 2cents
>>> /cheers
>>> Anders
Received on Tuesday, 3 June 2003 01:07:21 UTC

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