Re: Correlation Requirements

Burdett, David wrote:

>Assaf
>
>You said ...
>
>  
>
>>>>You have very specific structures like RN vs OAG and you want to avoid
>>>>        
>>>>
>dependency on those so as to allow multiple over-the-wire formats (as you
>discuss below). But there's also the content model or information structure
>that is important to convey. If you send me some message that is
>semantically a PO, that's not very helpful if I can't find some line items,
>billing address, etc in there.<<<
>
>I totally agree. But I would separate this problem into three parts:
>1. Define the relevant states - by specifying in the choreography, *what*
>"states" are relevant. For example the fact that an order contained goods
>that had export restrictions, might have a substantive effect on the flow of
>the choreography. In this case, the state "ExportRestrictedOrder", or
>something like it, would need to be defined.
>
Are you saying that a choreography would select one of two alternative 
flows based on this state, or that there are two different 
choreographies, depending on which type of order is being sent?

arkin

>2. Determine document formats compatible with the choreography. For example,
>there will be rules that uses information about an order and the parties
>involved to determine whether or not it is export restricted. This means
>that, before you can use a particular choreography, you need to make sure
>that the order document format (or information derivable from eleswhere
>using data in the document) contains the required information. Once you have
>done that analysis, you can specify which choreographies can be used which
>document formats.
>3. Define the choreography binding. Finally, once you have identified
>compatible combinations of document format and choreography, you can build
>an implementation and specify exactly which choreography, document formats,
>message formats, security, RM protocol, etc. as well as the services you are
>going to use. You can also bind the state, e.g. "ExportRestrictedOrder" to
>an executable set of conditions that allows the value of the state to be
>determined for any order instance. At this point, you are specifying the
>"how".
>
>David
>  
>

Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 02:07:25 UTC