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

Re: Part I, perhaps readable.

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Date: Thu, 24 Nov 2005 16:31:59 +0000
Message-Id: <c59ce42cd171ecc9866ea6340dd1fcd1@pi4tech.com>
Cc: yoshida@doc.ic.ac.uk, Gary Brown <gary@pi4tech.com>, carbonem@dcs.qmul.ac.uk
To: Kohei Honda <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>, 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Fine to send.

Send to public-ws-chor@w3.org

I am looking forward to seeing it on the list.

I would add a cover note saying something like,

<start>
Dear WG members,

as invited experts we have been working on the formal side of WS-CDL. 
We would like to share our thoughts with you and submit the enclosed 
paper as the basis for a W3C Working Note subject, of course, to WG 
approval. We would be pleased to hear from you about the paper and will
look forward the next F2F meeting to present it in person.

Best regards

......
<end>

How does that sound?

Cheers

Steve T

On 24 Nov 2005, at 16:26, Kohei Honda wrote:public-ws-chor@w3.org

> Hi Gary,
>
> Many thanks --- -we are now incorporating your comments
> in our final version. Do you think Steve thinks this is OK to
> be sent to WG members? In that case,  should we use:
>
> (1) some WS-CDL mailing list (but then which?)
> (2) or directly to the (active?) members of the WS-CDL WG?
>
> If (2) has a specific mailing list we can send our paper
> to it. Perhaps the list Martin and others are using for  F2F
> is for (2).  I am not sure how many lists are there and which
> is most suitable (or individual delivery). We shall also send
> it to Robin.
>
> Sending can wait until tomorrow's morning, but perhaps
> better to be done within today.
>
> Best wishses,
>
> kohei
>
> Gary Brown wrote:
>
>> Hi Kohei,
>>
>> I have checked sections 4 and 5, and they are very good. I have put a 
>> couple of comments below.
>>
>>
>> 2nd to last para in 4.4, "anther" should be "another"
>>
>> Last line sectiion 4.3, "(it is notable that CDL [2] does not 
>> stipulate such atomicity)."
>> Would an 'aligned' interaction not be considered atomic?
>>
>> Section 5:
>>
>> p25: "CDL channels are located at the inputting side, representing 
>> the ports where the sender writes to. Formalisms are more general, 
>> using channels both for input and for output."
>> Not sure I understand this? The channel also needs to be defined in 
>> the receiving participant and is used for returning a response.
>>
>> p26: "As we saw above, exception are indispensable for managing many 
>> interesting real application situations. One thing missing in WS-CDL 
>> would be the ability of handling exceptions locally, with a standard 
>> local scoping rule. This topic may deserve further consideration."
>> CDL does have exception handlers associated with sub-choreographies, 
>> so these could be considered local exception handlers?
>>
>>
>> Regards
>> Gary
>>
>> ----- Original Message ----- From: <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
>> To: <steve@pi4tech.com>; <gary@pi4tech.com>
>> Cc: <carbonem@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>; <yoshida@doc.ic.ac.uk>; 
>> <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
>> Sent: Wednesday, November 23, 2005 9:20 PM
>> Subject: Part I, perhaps readable.
>>
>>
>>> Hi Steve and Gary,
>>>
>>> I am sending the latest version of Part I. Our intention
>>> is this might be readbale to WS-CDL WG's members. It will
>>> also be sent to Robin.
>>>
>>> I wish you to take a look at, among others:
>>>
>>> Section 4: criss crossing examples.
>>> Section 5: comparisons.
>>> bibliography.
>>>
>>> Especially Section 5 can be somewhat sensitive, so if not
>>> other parts *please take a look at Section 5* (it is just
>>> one page).
>>>
>>> Section 4 is perhaps hardest part technically, so I wonder
>>> our narrative is OK. I also wish to know, if time allows,
>>> how you think about our solutions, but that can wait.
>>>
>>> Please let me know your observations. I will wait for your
>>> ideas --- or just an ack --- before sending this out.
>>>
>>> Best wishes.
>>>
>>> kohei
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
Received on Thursday, 24 November 2005 16:32:24 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:42 GMT