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

Re: requirements summary

From: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:05:36 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030324155603.02979e30@franklin.cisco.com>
To: jdart@tibco.com, Daniel_Austin@grainger.com
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org

I was originally thinking that a multi-party choreography can always be 
broken down into multiple "inter-dependent" bi-party choreography.  But I 
am convinced that this is NOT always possible.

See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Mar/0052.html

So I think bi-party choreography is a special case of multi-party 
choreography.  Bi-party choreography has some interesting properties that 
can simplify the modeling.  (e.g. Bi-Party choreography doesn't need to 
worry about dynamic participation because any change of a binding can 
simply terminate the choreography).

I think we should covered multi-party choreography.  In additional, we may 
also need to investigate this special subset called bi-party choreography.

Best regards,
Ricky

At 02:28 PM 3/24/2003 -0800, Jon Dart wrote:

>Daniel_Austin@grainger.com wrote:
>>2. Multi-party vs. bilateral choreography: there is some skepticism
>>that modelling bilateral interactions is sufficient.
>>       I certainly don't think that is it sufficient to model only bilateral
>>transactions. Many business transactions have multiple actors, and we want
>>to build standards that will work for common service transaction models.
>
>Note that it is not exactly all or nothing here. BPSS for example supports 
>"MultiParty Collaborations", but does so by composing them out of "Binary 
>Collaborations".
>
>--Jon
>
>
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 19:05:51 GMT

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