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

RE: Choreography-related definitions in the Web Services Glossary

From: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 16 Mar 2003 09:43:44 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030316094146.029d1308@franklin.cisco.com>
To: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, "Hugo Haas" <hugo@w3.org>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Agree !  But I think we care more about those Web Service interaction that 
are crossing the boundary of "domain of control" rather than within it.

Best regards,
Ricky

At 05:53 PM 3/15/2003 -0800, Assaf Arkin wrote:

> >    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 Sunday, 16 March 2003 12:58:23 GMT

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