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

Re: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973

From: Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>
Date: Thu, 4 Aug 2005 14:17:06 +0100
Message-ID: <004501c598f6$d1551cc0$0200a8c0@GPB1>
To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

I think the current wording is fair, because we don't want a situation where 
a particular choreography element behaves differently in two 
implementations, simply on the basis of whether an optional extension is 
supported by one of the implementations.

In the example given below, this information (digital signature) is simply 
another factor that can be taken into account to determine whether a 
choreography is valid. However, how the particular implementation chooses to 
use that information (i.e. don't permit the choreography description to be 
used) is implementation specific, and should not affect the semantics of an 
individual element in that description.

I think preserving the semantics of the core elements is fundamental to 
ensuring inter-operability.

Regards
Gary

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:01 PM
Subject: FW: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973




any views on this?

My own take is that we don't really define parsing semantics only
endpoint/execution semnatics, but
I do sort of see the point given the current language.

Martin.


-----Original Message-----
From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:09 PM
To: Martin Chapman
Cc: public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org
Subject: Re: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973


* Martin Chapman wrote:
>Well I can define an extension called "foo" and in the description of
>foo it could redefine the semantics of something in the cdl namespace.
>For example "foo should be used instead of perform and its behaviour is

>not to invoke the indicated choreography".  This would not be allowed
>as it contradicts the specs definition of perform.

Okay, so, let's say I create a XML DSig extension where an ds:Signature
element is added as last child of cdl:choreography. Implementations of
this extension are required to ignore the cdl:choreography element if
the Signature is not valid. This would seem to contradict the semantics
of the cdl:choreography element since implementations are not allowed to
ignore it under these conditions. So making such a XML DSig extension is
not allowed. Correct?
-- 
Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de
Weinh. Str. 22 · Telefon: +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de
68309 Mannheim · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 13:17:16 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:40 GMT