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

Re: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 10:04:13 -0800
Message-Id: <E4F91B3C-45F2-11D8-B909-000A95DC494A@fla.fujitsu.com>
Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>

  responses in line.

On Jan 13, 2004, at 9:47 AM, Champion, Mike wrote:

>> -----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 :-)

Sure, and we don't have a whole of lot time :)

>> 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?

The fundamental reason that messages must *not* be subservient to 
services is that more than one service may process a given message. 
There is no one-to-one relationship between messages and services.

>>  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?
I think it is actually. I haven't kept in touch with what they are 
doing :(, but I would say it is consistent.
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 13:04:26 UTC

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