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

Re: Combining Policies (was RE: Partial executability/ determinis m of a Chor description language

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Wed, 04 Jun 2003 21:27:13 -0700
Message-ID: <3EDEC6A1.1050406@intalio.com>
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
CC: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>, "Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

Burdett, David wrote:

> <DB>It's only a done deal because: a) there are dominant networks like 
> Visa and Mastercard that can make it work, and b) they have been 
> working on it for decades. The issue is that for Web Services, right 
> now, there is no "done deal" and it will be some time before it gets 
> there. This means, that we should start thiking about what it takes to 
> help the "deal get done faster".</DB>
There are a lot of other scenarios like that. I don't care how they came 
to be, I know that they exist, and like Visa and Mastercard are very 
commonly used. So let's support them. I agree that we should also help 
the "deal get done faster". But where the agreement problem doesn't 
exist, why not leverage that?

> <DB>People can always make the decision on which service (e.g. a bank 
> account) to use because they can read. Computers find it much harder 
> as they don't understand the semantics.</DB>
Probably not, but my computer can still make selections without having 
to understand semantics. The proposal I made was to name things, so you 
only need to recognize the names, and that a computer can easily do.

> <DB>You could expose it as part of your WSDL definition. However 
> before it could be used, someone else would have to write software 
> that could interpret the semantics of the definition so that it could 
> make an appropriate decision. Although this is possible, I don't see 
> it happening unless and until there is some standardization of the 
> semantics around how you describe the rules and regulations as the 
> cost of developing the software for all the different ways of 
> describing the semantics would be prohibitive.</DB>
Not contradicting anything I'm saying. I could also make it a property 
in a UDDI entry and do a search based on that property. If only I could 
have something I could reference ;-)

Received on Thursday, 5 June 2003 01:00:58 UTC

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