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

RE: Different composition(or invocation) order may result an undesirable Feature Interaction problem in Web service

From: Chiusano Joseph <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>
Date: Wed, 29 Sep 2004 09:31:54 -0400
Message-ID: <2BD3860A32296145AE43B60823240F270750AF@mclnexbh02.resource.ds.bah.com>
To: "rayluo" <rayluo@rogers.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
One angle from which you might want to approach such a problem is
Semantic Web Services[1] (I'll defer to others on this list to respond
on how to approach it from the  Choreography perspective). More
specifically, if Web Services are sufficiently richly described (using
semantic technologies), there could be enough "awareness" between a Web
Service consumer (invoker) and a Web Service producer (invokee) that may
avoid interactions that result in what you call an "undesirable Feature
Interaction". You may want to also present your request to the Semantic
Web Services Interest Group listserv[2].
 
Kind Regards,

Joe Chiusano

Booz Allen Hamilton

Strategy and Technology Consultants to the World

 

[1] http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1B/
<http://www.daml.org/services/owl-s/1.1B/> 
[2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-sws-ig/
 
 
________________________________

From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of rayluo
Sent: Saturday, September 25, 2004 9:15 PM
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Different composition(or invocation) order may result an
undesirable Feature Interaction problem in Web service



	Hi,
	   I am working on my Master Thesis which concerns the
undesirable Feature Interaction problem in Web service composition.Does
anyone know of work that addresses this issue? I consider different
composition(invocation) order may result an undesirable Feature
Interaction problem in Web service composition. Does anybody know
examples about it?
	 
	Thanks,
	 
	Ray Luo
Received on Wednesday, 29 September 2004 13:32:32 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:05 GMT