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

Re: Slight mod to service model

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Fri, 9 Jan 2004 08:52:22 -0800
Message-Id: <31EAC76F-42C4-11D8-9082-000A95DC494A@fla.fujitsu.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>

  Composition is not what I intended. That notwithstanding, we do need 
to take composition, MEPs etc into account.
  The core idea is that a message signals a significant event in the 
execution of a task; however, the message is not the *same* as the 
task, nor does it represent the task in all cases (my mistake).
  It *is* the key entry point for choreography though: if you view 
choreography as the organization of tasks by messages.
  We could easily elaborate on this further I think.

On Jan 9, 2004, at 6:28 AM, Champion, Mike wrote:

>> -----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
>> 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 11:52:40 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:10 UTC