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

RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:47:24 -0500
Message-ID: <BDD579D96530CA4BAAAD5D9549BDE77901457F0E@resmsg01.sagus.com>
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Francis McCabe [mailto:fgm@fla.fujitsu.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 12:40 PM
> To: Champion, Mike
> Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6
> However, two features of the W3C/XML space *do* seem to mitigate this:
> a. The XML convention that processors ignore elements that 
> they do not understand.
> b. The Semantic Web/Ontology way of expressing connections 
> between terms within messages.

More good stuff I'd like to incorporate in the next draft of 1.6

> A second root cause of fragility is, IMO, the limited models 
> of conversation that we always seem to come up when getting 
> computers to talk to each other. OO approaches are fundamentally
> command-and-control:

Hmm, I agree but this could take the document into deeper water than we can
swim without attracting man-eating trout :-)

> On reflection, I would say that there is a equality in the 
> relationship between services and messages. That is at the 
> heart of the SOA
> approach: neither is subservient to the other.

Why aren't messages subservient to services?  The messages exist only for
the purpose of invoking the service and telling the consumer the result, no?

>  By identifying 
> messages as way points in a choreography seems to be a 
> productive way of capturing the essentials in the SOA. (And 
> it re-legitimizes the WS-CHOR
> work!)

This touches on another of my open action items -- is "choreography" really
the right word here, given how WS-CHOR defines it?
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 12:49:43 UTC

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