W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > January 2004

RE: Slight mod to service model

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 09:28:12 -0500
Message-ID: <BDD579D96530CA4BAAAD5D9549BDE7790124B0FE@resmsg01.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mario Jeckle [mailto:mario@jeckle.de] 
> Sent: Friday, January 09, 2004 2:05 AM
> To: Francis McCabe
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Slight mod to service model
> 
> 
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> 
> | 1.    The relationship between a message and task is one of
> | choreography. The idea is that messages denote significant 
> events in 
> | the choreography of tasks. Anyone with a better suggestion 
> would be welcomed.
> 
> Perhaps, the following could work.
> Introduce a new node titled choreography. This node has a 
> relationship to message named "orchestrates" (alternatively: 
> "consists of", but I would prefer the first one).
> This will express that a cheoreography is a separate entity 
> within the service model.

Would "composition" be a better term than "orchestration" or "choreography"?
We want something that can cover MEPs, orchestration (tasks implemented by
multiple service invocations controlled by a single agent) and choregraphy
(tasks implemented by multiple service invocations that are not controlled
by a single agent), right?  

I think this is in the spirit of "composite" WS applications as described by
CAF (http://www.webservices.org/index.php/article/articleview/1297/1/24/).
Isn't the result of a "composition" a "composite"?
Received on Friday, 9 January 2004 09:28:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:24 GMT