W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2005

Re: Proposal against issue 1001

From: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 19 Apr 2005 11:13:48 -0700
Message-ID: <194a01c5450b$88a15b40$538e1990@us.oracle.com>
To: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Cc: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com>

A) If i remember correctly, we spent ~1h discussing this isssue at the Redwood Shores
F2F in Nov 2004 and at that time the proposals you guys made were all
about *session identity*:

1)  Correlation Issue: Pre-Proposal (Thursday, 11 November)

2)  Correlation proposal (Thursday, 18 November)

3)  Updated correlation proposal (Friday, 19 November)

B) Then we spent ~1h in the Boston F2F discussing this new
proposal, which is not about session identity. 

But, there were many questions/concerns raised by me, Martin, Charlton, 
Abbie (the minutes should have this recording) regarding this approach.

I would like to understand why there is such a difference between the two proposals you guys made?
We can have a bried discussion about this in today's call, or we can do it through email.



----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com>
To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>; "Nickolas Kavantzas" <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
Cc: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 19, 2005 9:18 AM
Subject: Re: Proposal against issue 1001

Hi Nick,

Thanks (as ever) for you prompt response. I think that we have some mix 
up along the line and I think this has caused a degree of confusion or 
uncertainty around issue 1001. To be clear from our side the issue that 
was raised was related to correlating multiple channel instances within 
a choreography session - it was not about providing session identity. 
This may be an issue in and of itself but is not central to issue 1001. 
Issues relating to session identity we see as separate and if you wish 
to raise them yourself then that is fine too.

The proposal addresses the issue that was raised (correlating multiple 
channel instances), and is important in achieving endpoint monitoring 
and end point generation. This is why we raised the issue in the first 

While we understand your points about sessions they are not required to 
resolve issue 1001. Rather than mix these issues up let us concentrate 
on issue 1001 and the proposal to resolve issue 1001. What we need from 
you in particular and the group are comment raised against this 
proposal, to enable us to either defend the proposal, or identify gaps 
that need to be addressed as they relate to issue 1001.


Steve T
>> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Feb/0032.html
>> We would ask the WG members to raise issues against this proposal by
>> email rather than using a conf call.
>> Best
>> Steve T
Received on Tuesday, 19 April 2005 18:15:32 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:07 UTC