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

Re: Coordinated Choreographies Proposal 6 - Extending Choreographies

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Wed, 10 Nov 2004 05:38:31 -0800
To: Haugen Robert <Robert.Haugen@choreology.com>
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Message-id: <419219D7.3070602@sun.com>

Haugen Robert wrote:

>Monica J. Martin wrote:
>  
>
>>In thinking about nested choreographies, you could have a 
>>child derived from a parent OR a child that is dependent on a parent but 
>>not extended from it. Can we address either case (Proposal 6 includes the former only).
>>    
>>
>Proposal 6 is only trying to address the former case, which does not exist now in CDL.
>
>I'm not sure what you mean by the latter:
>the relationship of an inner choreography to an enclosing one,
>or the relationship between one choreography
>that performs another?
>I think both do now exist in CDL,
>and are essentially the same,
>although proposal 4 puts a new wrinkle on both.
>
>  
>
mm1: The difference is that a child can not be run standalone but must 
be in an enclosing choreography. It is not extended from the enclosing 
choreography nor necessarily performed (from another choreography, 
location, etc.) although it could be. Note, one child may be or may not 
be restricted to use in a choreography package (the restriction is a 
constraint rather than evidence of the choreography or choreography 
fragment's construction). An example would be a loan assessor 
choreography that evaluates risk of guaranteeing a customer including a 
credit check.  The loan assessment could be run as a separate 
choreography but in our particular scenario it must be run only in a 
bank loan application choreography because of constraints applied by the 
loan policies.

Thanks.
Received on Wednesday, 10 November 2004 13:38:36 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:10 GMT