RE: Simple Choreography composition suggestion

Ugo,

This seems to suggest that a choreograpy defines, or
may define a web service.  On the contrary, I see
a choreography as defining relationships between
web services.

Fred

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:07 PM
> To: Assaf Arkin
> Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Simple Choreography composition suggestion
> 
> 
> 
> > A choreography as I understand if is a Web service only if 
> it has an 
> > entry point that is used by someone outside the 
> choreography to start 
> > it. If the choreography starts when A sends a message to B (A and B 
> > being roles covered by the choreography), then it's not a 
> Web service. 
> > But if the choreography starts by someone sending a message 
> to A, where 
> > that role is not otherwise covered by the choreography, then that 
> > choreography is a Web service. It has an externally 
> accessible entry 
> > point, or any other term we may opt to use.
> > 
> > Since it's a Web service, it can further be used in a larger 
> > choreography that may or may not be a Web service. Such a 
> choreography 
> > would cover that additional role that starts the Web 
> service choreography.
> 
> Yes, that's basically the point I was making with my BPEL example. 
> 
> It seems to me that, since choreographies are "made" of Web 
> services, establishing this relationship between a 
> choreography and the Web service that "encapsulates" that 
> same choreography (if any) would provide a way of talking 
> about choreographies composition.
> 
> Ugo
>  
>

Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 17:03:05 UTC