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

RE: Multi-Party Binding Scenario

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Tue, 25 Mar 2003 12:59:20 -0800
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1866@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'jdart@tibco.com'" <jdart@tibco.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>, "'Ricky Ho'" <riho@cisco.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

I think that the number of choreographies (i.e. the sequence of messages)
actually used in practice is quite limited. For example when buying goods,
some of the main flows are:
1. Order & Order Response. In this approach a one-off order is placed by a
Buyer to which the Seller sends a response. After this, the Buyer may change
or cancel the order until it is shipped. Variations on this remove the
ability to do changes or a cancellation. This is approach is very widely
used, especially for non-supply chain or B2C purchases.
2. Vendor managed inventory. In this approach the seller has access to the
buyer's stock levels and agrees to ship goods so that stock levels are
maintained. This is common in the retail industry - especially supermarkets
3. Blanket orders. In this approach the Buyer gives instructions to deliver
goods at specific place and time to the seller based on earlier "blanket
order". Once delivered, the Buyer checks the goods and pays for what he
accepts. This is widely used in the auto industry.

There are also HUGE benefits if there is standardization on: a) a generic
way of doing basic ordering, and b) how to place orders with an industry as
with the first, anyone will be able to place an order with anyone else and
with the second you can place orders in a way which is optimal for your

So, based on my experience as both a consultant and working for a company
that sells procurement software, the choreographies will often be the same.

But I suppose the real question is do we want a solution that *requires*
that a new choreography definition must be created whenever the content of a
message in the choreography changes? I don't think so.


-----Original Message-----
From: Jon Dart [mailto:jdart@tibco.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 25, 2003 12:45 PM
To: Burdett David
Cc: Assaf Arkin; 'Ricky Ho'; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Multi-Party Binding Scenario

Small variations such as VAT or no VAT can be dealt with in a single 
order processing system, and commonly are.

OTOH, if the message content varies widely, is the choreography likely 
to be the same? Would I just deploy a single abstract choreography to 
change what industry I am serving? A semiconductor manufacturer, for 
example, is likely to have different order processing rules than a shoe 
manufacturer. More than just the message content differs.


Burdett, David wrote:
> Jon
> What you think is unusual is actually very common and here's the use 
> case ...
> The content of an order document, say, will vary depending on such 
> things as: the industry in which the choreography is being used and 
> country in which the order is being placed. For example in the shoe 
> industry you might want sex, shoe size and color as elements in a line 
> item. On the other hand, in the travel industry you would not and might 
> want flight segment information instead. In Europe you need to include 
> VAT tax information (e.g. registered VAT number) but in the US you would 
> not.
Received on Tuesday, 25 March 2003 15:59:29 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:57 UTC