- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 15:48:35 -0700
- CC: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Ugo Corda wrote: >>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. > > That's one way of composition, but I'm not sure why it would be interesting. I mean, I can't think of this use case as something that would require yet another mechanism to describe it, given that you already have a language for expressing the process definition. arkin >Ugo > > >
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 18:48:45 UTC