W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > October 2002

RE: Definition of Choreography

From: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Oct 2002 14:29:25 -0700
Message-ID: <C513FB68F8200244B570543EF3FC65370A855BC2@MAIL1.stc.com>
To: "'Scott Vorthmann'" <scottv@tibco.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org


Another possibly useful concept along the lines of your note is that of
computability (a la Computability Theory). A behavior is computable (by
definition) in the case there exist an algorithm that can effectively
describe the behavior. That can be true regardless of whether the behavior
is described in a scripted/procedural/imperative form (in which case the
algorithm is already given) or whether the behavior is "emergent" from
rule/condition interactions (so that an algorithm still exists, even though
it's not explicitly given).

On the other hand, behavior expressed via rule/condition interactions might
not be computable, in the sense that there is no algorithm that can describe
it (because, for instance, the rules/conditions are incomplete).

If this concept is useful, my next question would be whether choreography
systems as they are described today in various specs always describe
behavior that is computable.


-----Original Message-----
From: Scott Vorthmann [mailto:scottv@tibco.com]
Sent: Thursday, October 17, 2002 1:59 PM
To: Mathews Walden; 'David Orchard'; 'Mark Baker'; 'Champion Mike'
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Definition of Choreography

Another way to look at the distinction, if it is useful:  is the behavior of
the system "scripted" in some direct (procedural/imperative) way, or
"emergent" from rule/condition interactions?

Received on Thursday, 17 October 2002 17:30:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:00 UTC