- From: Andrew Berry <andyb@whyanbeel.net>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 00:11:53 +1000
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> > Jon Dart wrote: > > > Several statements have been made about the kind of model we don't > want. > > But IMO it is not really clear enough what we do want. > > > > If I understand things correctly (a fairly big "if"), one > requirement is > > that there be basically one model for both client & server (or peer > and > > its peer, if you want to be more egalitarian). This means that I > don't > > need to model the messages one party sends and have a parallel model > of > > what the other party is receiving. The choreography description I > expose > > to my partners should be sufficient for them to interact with me. > This > > doesn't imply that there's one big model of all participants' message > > flows - in fact I think you don't want this. But it does imply that > as > > party A directly interacting with party B, both parties have a model > > they can both view and base their interactions on (could include > 2 > > participants also). > One of the issues that has come up for me in the past is that of business contracts. Business-to-business interaction tends to be governed by legally-binding, written or unwritten contracts that specify the required roles and behaviour of all participants. Is a choreography an electronic representation of a business contract for the interaction? If so, then perhaps model visibility/scope should be defined by the contract boundaries. Ciao, AndyB
Received on Wednesday, 16 July 2003 10:10:11 UTC