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

RE: Abstract Object Model

From: Fletcher, Tony <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>
Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:20:42 +0100
Message-ID: <221369570DEDF346AE42821041345E89194C77@exchange1.corp.choreology.com>
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Dear David et al,

Yes I agree with you that we will need to develop a model (abstract
object or otherwise) for each of these key pieces of the puzzle.

I was merely reacting to the suggestion that role and responsibility
were effectively the same thing as far as we were concerned.  This is
actually not an unreasonable suggestion.  In many instances the 'entity'
(/participant?) that assumes a role will also assume all the
responsibilities associated with that role.  We could limit the WS-Chor
language to only support that possibility.

But that is a limitation.  In general an 'entity'(/participant) could
assume responsibility for a role, but delegate the execution of the
actions to another entity, or an entity could perform the actions of a
role, but pass (legal) responsibility to another entity.

Suggested conclusion:

1)  That we should have separate definitions for "role" and
"responsibility" in our glossary (and I have made a suggestion to Monica
already).

2)  That we should decide whether, or not, it is a requirement that the
language should be a able to  show the assignment of role activity and
role responsibility to different entities.

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
 
Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787   Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785  Mobile: +44 (0)
7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)


-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] 
Sent: 13 May 2003 19:54
To: Fletcher, Tony; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Abstract Object Model (was: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our
mission statement


Tony

Reading your email made me think that perhaps we need to develop an
abstract object model of the different "pieces", e.g. role,
choreography, message, service, interaction etc. Then we can carve out
the subset that is related to choreography that also needs to be
exchanged with others for interoperability and serialize it as XML.
Wouldn't we then have our choreography language?

The point is talking about individual abstract concepts such as those
you mention is like showing a few pieces of the jigsaw puzzle withouth
seeing the whole picture. On the other hand, this model ought to reflect
multiple specs to be really useful which perhaps would be too big an
task to attempt.

... or is this completely off beam ...

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Fletcher, Tony [mailto:Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com]
Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:40 AM
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement



Dear Colleagues,

Just a small nitpick on the nitpick.

I think that it has been pointed out to me (and so I pass this on) that
role and responsibility are not the same, and may need to be separately
addressed in a choreography as one 'entity' may have responsibility for
a role but 'delegate' that role to some other entity (or the other way
around - the official role owner may delegate responsibility for
execution to another 'entity')

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
 
Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787   Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785  Mobile: +44 (0)
7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patil, Sanjaykumar
Sent: 10 May 2003 00:07
To: Nickolas Kavantzas; Jean-Jacques Dubray
Cc: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement




This is good. 

Some nitpicking:
- Can we say "global view" instead of "common view". There is a
difference, isn't it.
- Aren't role and responsibility the same? Can we instead say  "roles
and their interactions are clearly defined ..."
- The auomatable, machine-readable attributes are important.  But we
need to identify what exactly needs to be machine readable (the
definition of global view?) and what needs to be automatable (the
process of deriving each participants obligations from the global view?)

However this definition gives me a feeling that we are getting there. 

Sanjay Patil
Distinguished Engineer
sanjay.patil@iona.com
-------------------------------------------------------
IONA Technologies
2350 Mission College Blvd. Suite 650
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: (408) 350 9619
Fax: (408) 350 9501
-------------------------------------------------------
Making Software Work Together TM
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 05:21:01 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:17 GMT