RE: Grounding Choreographies (the atoms) - WAS Simple Choreography composition suggestion

Dear Fred and others,

I basically agree with what you say below.  As I stated in a previous
mail I think that merging different levels of a choreography may not be
the best approach - but it will depend on the mechanics of the language
we come up with.  I would have a preference for a layered or modular
approach where you could define the RM protocol as a choreography then
just use that as an 'interaction' at the next level with only the
information considered to be significant being 'visible' at the higher
'layer' (the message made 'reliable' in this case).

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions  (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com
 
Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787   Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785  Mobile: +44 (0)
7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)


-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Cummins, Fred A
Sent: 17 July 2003 18:59
To: Martin Chapman; Steve Ross-Talbot; Champion, Mike
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Grounding Choreographies (the atoms) - WAS Simple
Choreograph y composition suggestion



Martin,

While I agree that it should be possible to define a MEP with the
choreography langauge, I would not like a reliable messaging
choreography to be merged with a purchasing choreography.  
I want the purchasing choreography to be expressed with the reliable
messaging protocol implied, i.e., abstracted out.

The MEP will have implications to the design of the business
choreography.  Consequently, it may be necessary to incorporate a
reference so that the assumptions are clear, but I don't see a single
choreography incorporating both levels of 
abstraction in any more complex way.

Fred

Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 07:22:47 UTC