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

RE: More about the patient/receptionist/doctor use case.

From: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:48:10 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030327104315.02a0f9f0@franklin.cisco.com>
To: "Stephen White" <swhite@SeeBeyond.com>, "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Cc: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

I think the diagram precisely represent the text description of the use 
case I originally put up.
We can argue whether the doctor use case really need an interleaving 
dependency.  And I'd like to hear from Francis which particular 
dependencies are inappropriate.


>One issue behind diagrams like these is that (a) they presuppose an
>ordering relationship between messages between the receptionist and the
>patient that is dependent on message between the doctor and the
>receptionist. This is not accurate.
>[saw]I don't think this is an issue of the diagrams itself. The diagrams 
>were to help visualize the issues of the discussion. A multi-Party 
>choreography presupposes the ordering relationship you mention. But the 
>individual 2-party choreographies do not presuppose this ordering 
>relationship. The diagrams helped clarify the difference between the two 
>approaches (at least for me).

+1

>And (b) that there is one
>receptionist/patient interaction with every receptionist/doctor
>interaction, again not sustainable; at least, the interleaving is not
>so straightforward.
>[saw]This might be an argument against a multi-party choreography or we 
>should discuss a way of representing complexities of the relationships, if 
>possible. Again, I intended the diagrams to help facilitate the discussions.

+1


>Frank
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 13:49:10 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:07 GMT