- From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
- Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 20:38:22 +0000
- 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