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

RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@chevrontexaco.com>
Date: Tue, 13 Jan 2004 12:05:21 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E031328BE@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

I see your point about messages and services, Mike ... Buuuuut, it seems
to me that in business applications the messages tend to take on a life
of their own, and in a sense the services might be considered
subordinate.  The point is the invoice, not the mechanism which gets it
there or the back offices sytem that munges it.  This might be
particularly true in transactions that involve several participants.  I
can imagine a case where A generates document D and sends it to B.  B
modifies D in some way and sends it to C.  And so on.  The focus is on
the document, which presumably is not the canonical stock quote, an
example I am beginning to be very tired of.

I'm warming to Frank's approach, although as usual he seems to be on a
slightly more abstract plane than I am.

I am, however, also wondering how necessary it is to try to make these

-----Original Message-----
From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Champion, Mike
Sent: Tuesday, January 13, 2004 11:47 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed replacement text for Section 1.6


> -----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"
the right word here, given how WS-CHOR defines it?
Received on Tuesday, 13 January 2004 13:05:38 UTC

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