RE: Dubray paper comments + questions

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of bhaugen
> Sent: Thursday, February 27, 2003 6:10 AM
> To: Assaf Arkin; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Dubray paper comments + questions
>
>
>
> Assaf Arkin wrote
> > The basic unit of work is a conversation not a message.
>
> Not in every case, but certainly for the interesting
> business cases, which are conversations about
> economic exchanges.
>
> In response to what somebody else wrote,
> I agree that a dialog has two sides,
> and each side has its own point of view.
>
> But if it's a conversation, eventually
> the two sides need to communicate.
>
> That could be accomplished in several ways:
> * predefined script for the whole conversation
> * one side publishes its procedure, the other side conforms
> * both sides negotiate a script
> * formal rules of engagement, but no script
> * loose improvisation
> * probably some others I haven't considered.
>
> As always, the correct approach will depend
> on the situation.

I definitely agree and would like to add to further requirements:

* A conversation may involve more than one participant
* Conversation rules usually allow participants to join and leave
* A conversation may range over multiple participants but involve only a
subset at any sub-conversation
* A participation in one conversation could be identical to a participation
in another conversation
* Negotiating a script is also a conversation, so a conversation that leads
to a conversation needs to be described

arkin

>
> -Bob Haugen

Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 15:45:52 UTC