W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > January 2004

Issues summary (possibly to discuss on the call)

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:38:22 +0000
Message-Id: <6DCEF832-4608-11D8-AD97-000393D13C9A@enigmatec.net>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org

20 ISSUES TO BE RESOLVED

Bug 342: The issue is that the choreography working group needs to  
resolve the notion of turing
completeness.

The issue revolves around two things.

Firstly is it possible to describe the external observable behaviour  
for all choreographies without
the need to use any conditional logic?

Secondly does a choreography need to be executable in a program  
execution sense (in which case
turing completness is necessary).

Bug 436: Transaction capability in CDL

Bug 433: It might be useful to have a chor with no web services for  
instance, a workflow
if you don't take this into account, you can only use chor in a fully
automated system.

http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2003Nov/att-0021/ 
20031118-0.htm

Bug 432: CSF-004 - not addressed in requirements use cases

To be successful a CDL MUST enable a choreography to be segmented based
on some facet.
Comment: Not addressed in use cases.

bug report requested by: Monica Martin

Bug 431: Security as related to specifying policy and/or assertions.

Bug 342: The issue is that the choreography working group needs to  
resolve the notion of turing
completeness.

The issue revolves around two things.

Firstly is it possible to describe the external observable behaviour  
for all choreographies without
the need to use any conditional logic?

Secondly does a choreography need to be executable in a program  
execution sense (in which case
turing completness is necessary).

Bug 333: We need a choreography protocol use case.

from 29 July 2003 concall:  
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-
chor/2003Aug/att-0005/Minutes07292003.htm


Bug 332:  What do we mean by semantics of web services and what are  
they for.

from 22 july 2003 concall:  
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/07/22-minutes.html

Bug 317: Do all participants need to be known in advance?

related to issue http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=312

Is there a notion of unbounbded participants e.g. a choreography asks n
suppliers to place bids.

Discussed at the June F2F
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/06/JuneF2FMinutes.html

Bug 316: is negotiation part of the choreography language or should it  
be modelled as a choreography?

from the June F2f meeting:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/06/JuneF2FMinutes.htm

Bug 312: Can actual partipants in a choreography change during the  
lifetime of a choreography

taken from 6th May telecon
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/05/06-minutes.html

could be solved by allow participants to leave and join a choreography  
during
its lifetime.

What mechanism() are required to support this dynamic feature?

Bug 311: Storing and retreiving choreographies

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/04/29-minutes.html.

How can choreographies be stored, classified and retrieved.
On use case is for re-use scenarios.

------- Additional Comment #1 From Martin Chapman 2004-01-08 14:02  
-------
propose this is out of scope for the WG.

Bug 310: Do we encode time into choreographies?

Taken from 15th april telecon:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/04/15-minutes.html.

------- Additional Comment #1 From Martin Chapman 2003-08-27 15:19  
-------
need at least timeouts and need to distiguish between technical ones and
business ones (deadlines)

------- Additional Comment #2 From Martin Chapman 2004-01-08 14:01  
-------
any requirement. if not should there be?

Bug 308: Reusable choreographies and data formats

aken from 8th april telecon:

http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/04/08-minutes.html.

can we (should we) define a language that is independant of actual data  
formats
and schemas (xml, pips, etc) and broader that just web services (e.g  
mom)

------- Additional Comment #1 From Martin Chapman 2003-08-27 15:25  
-------
also discussed on 29th april:
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/04/29-minutes.html

------- Additional Comment #2 From Martin Chapman 2003-08-27 15:37  
-------
also discussed on 13th may:  
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/05/13-minutes.html
 
Bug 305: Is this group about internal, extrenal, or both aspects of a  
business process?

Issue raised at first F2F meeting in March.
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/03/F2fMinutes.html

------- Additional Comment #1 From Martin Chapman 2004-01-08 13:17  
-------
we have agreed to restrict ourselves to external observable behavior.  
Propose
to close this.

Bug 304: what do users actually need?

Issue raised at first F2F meeting in March.
http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/3/03/F2fMinutes.html

Bug 281: MEP as a simple choreography

Define MEP as a choreography then use (compose) this with others to  
form a
higher-level choreography.  Alternatively we could just view an MEP as a
pattern that a Web Service will do.

A possible definition of an MEP might include binding to Web Services,  
whereas
Choreography is above that and does not include an explicit binding  
except for
a binding to MEPs.  It was suggested that may be at this stage we  
needed to
have some creative ambiguity in this area until WSDL 1.2 is fixed.

See 267

Bug 280: Semantics of messages

A requirement to have some level of understanding  of the meaning of  
messages
and what that level of understanding should be.

Need a use case.

We need some framework for discussing why semantics of messages is  
important
for Choreography. This group may, or may not, be the correct one to  
tackle
this topic.  There may be at least two different aspects of semantics,  
one for
choreography and other for web services.  It was noted that the Web  
Service
Description group are looking at resources in the context of semantics  
of
messages.

Bug 274: Communication of State Change

ow are state changes (e.g. new participant join) communicated? part of  
the
choreography infrastructure or built into a choreography?

------- Additional Comment #1 From Martin Chapman 2004-01-08 14:06  
-------
*** Bug 318 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***

Bug 267: Specific Language for Describing MEPs

Do we need a specific language for describing MEPs?  Is this what  
WS-Chor
should be, or is this something that should be added to WSDL?

------- Additional Comment #1 From Martin Chapman 2004-01-08 12:48  
-------
I think we have ruled this out. Ws-Chor will not be a generic wsdl/soad  
MEP
language.

------- Additional Comment #2 From Martin Chapman 2004-01-08 12:53  
-------
I think we have ruled this out. Ws-Chor will not be a generic wsdl/soad  
MEP
language. Propsed to resolve this as resolved/wontfix (i.e. closed with  
no
action)

------- Additional Comment #3 From Martin Chapman 2004-01-08 13:01  
-------
*** Bug 275 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***


Bug 220: Correlation

We haven't discussed correlation mechanisms yet.
Example mail at:
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Jun/0085.html




Cheers

Steve T


O: +44 207 397 8207
C: +44 7855 268 848
www.enigmatec.net
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 15:38:48 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:03 UTC