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

RE: Choreography-related definitions in the Web Services Glossary

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Sat, 15 Mar 2003 17:53:00 -0800
To: "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <IGEJLEPAJBPHKACOOKHNOEIADFAA.arkin@intalio.com>

>    Turing complete
>           @@@

Can simulate a Universal Turing Machine. The definition of a Universal
Turing Machine is uniform and about one page long, I doubt if we want to
repeat it but can definitely reference it from a non-normative reference.

As for everything below, I have one question. We live in the WS world, so in
my opinion we should define activities that a WS performs and proceses in
which the WS is involved. If the WSA decides that WS only perform 'business
activities' that this term would be adequate. Similarly if the WSA decides
that WS are business entities, the a choreography of Web services is in fact
a choreography of business entities. But unless such a definition is
proposed by the WSA, should we make this restriction in our glossary?

arkin

>    abstract (choreography) business processes
>           These are definitions that are designed to describe the
>           ordering of business activities that send and/or receive
>           messages. The definition of the flow between activities is not
>           computationally complete (i.e., it cannot be executed). All of
>           the messages are between independent business entities
>           (participants). The participants may be across companies or
>           within a company. There are two types of these processes:
>           interface business processes and collaboration business
>           processes.
>
>    interface business processes
>           This is an abstract business process that defines how outside
>           participants can expect to interact with a service of a
>           business entity. This service can be implemented as any type of
>           application, including an executable business process. If the
>           interface is for an executable business process, then all
>           activities within the interface business process will also
>           exist within the executable business process-that is, the
>           interface business process will be a sub-set of the executable
>           business process. Example of specifications to define these
>           types of processes: WSCI and the abstract part of BPEL4WS.
>
>    collaboration business processes
>           This is an abstract business process that defines how two or
>           more interface business processes interact with each other.
>           Even if these business processes were executable, there could
>           be no central control mechanism that could run one of these
>           processes. These processes are dependent on the implementations
>           of the interface business processes to act in coordination.
>           Example of specifications to define these types of processes:
>           WSCI global model and BPSS.
>
>    executable (orchestration) business processes
>           These are definitions that are designed to describe the
>           ordering of business activities that send and/or receive
>           messages. The definition of the flow between activities is
>           computationally complete (i.e., it can be executed). The
>           messages may be sent to/from: a) an independent business entity
>           to itself and b) an independent business entity to another
>           (participant). These could be called internal or workflow
>           business processes. The business activities that interact with
>           another participant will also appear in a derived abstract
>           business process. In fact, the definition of an executable
>           business process is a superset of the definition of an abstract
>           business process. Example of specifications to define these
>           types of processes: executable part of BPEL4WS and BPML.
>
> Note that there wasn't consensus on these definitions.
>
> Regards,
>
> Hugo
>
> --
> Hugo Haas - W3C
> mailto:hugo@w3.org - http://www.w3.org/People/Hugo/
Received on Saturday, 15 March 2003 20:53:40 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:06 GMT