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

Re: Partial executability/ determinism of a Chor description language

From: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 12:26:22 -0700
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030530122600.035ba438@franklin.cisco.com>
To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org

+1
At 12:03 PM 5/30/2003 -0700, Assaf Arkin wrote:
>Let's assume this refinement of the use case given by Ricky.
>
>The buyer sends quote requests to three different suppliers, obtains the 
>results, and decides which one supplier to obtain the product from. The 
>decision criteria is called decision X. The buyer has absolutely no 
>intention whatsoever to disclosed decision X to the world. The buyer is 
>perfecly fine saying 'my decision X', but not providing any more 
>meaningful information.
>
>The supplier decides whether or not to accept the order. That decision is 
>called decision Y. Let's assume a more trivial example whereby some 
>suppliers do not support international orders for whatever reason.
>
>The buyer goes into the process of identifying a buyer, the cheapest one 
>of the bunch for that particular product, constructing a PO and sending it 
>to the buyer. Due to technical issues the response comes back 4 hours 
>later. The response says "RTFM - international orders not supported here". 
>The buyer understands why the order was rejected (a common error code), 
>but has just wasted 4 hours waiting for that response. Had the buyer read 
>the FM upfront the buyer would not even have selected that particular 
>supplier. The buyer then goes to the second supplier, unfortunately with 
>the same effect (it seems that all good deals are not available 
>internationally).
>
>Now let's change it slightly. Let's assume that the supplier can, along 
>with all other information indicating it's willingness to participate in 
>the choreography, indicate that one of the rules for decision Y is that 
>'no international orders are accepted'. Let's say there's a common way to 
>express it, which may or may not be an XPath expression, and a place to 
>say it. Now the buyer has the option to actually RTFM by not selecting 
>that supplier up front. So instead the buyer only selects the suppliers 
>that can actually fulfill the purchase order, selects the best one, and 
>starts talking to that supplier directly.
>
>So there is some benefit to knowing which decision is being made, so that 
>in some cases - in this scenario Y but not X, for some suppliers but not 
>all, for some buyers but not all - it is possible to determine the outcome 
>before sending the message saving money by not starting any transaction 
>that is doomed to fail. Is there a benefit in that capability?
>
>arkin
>
>
>Burdett, David wrote:
>
>>Following on from this, in practice you would need to have error codes in 
>>the return message that included one for "badlist" country. To realize 
>>interoperability, the error codes that could be present in the message 
>>data should be published in advance. In this case the sender should 
>>already know that orders from a badlist country would not be accepted.
>>
>>I don't see what this has to do with choreography ... or am I missing 
>>something.
>>
>>David
>
>
>
Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 15:26:20 GMT

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