- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:13:41 -0700
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- CC: Frank McCabe <frankmccabe@mac.com>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, "Champion, Mike" <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
It all boils down to terminology. I'm not suggesting any, just pointing out a problem. If we say "roles" and the WSA says "agents" then there's a mismatch. If the WSA defines an architecture in terms of agents interacting, but a choreography can't involve agents (that would be an orchestration) then we might have a problem there. We need to raise this and work out a terminology that is consistent across the board. So going back to Frank's original e-mail, either I didn't understand what was said, or we need to better align the usage of terminology between the two groups. As for what the interaction is, I much prefer if we talk in terms of WSDL interfaces. Then we won't have to go down into the details of HTTP, ack/resend, etc. When you express everything in terms of WSDL interface you are talking about these roles/agents interacting with each other. The protocol may end up using HTTP, it may include additional signals for RM, out-of-band signals for coordination, establish security context, whatever. Since this is already taken care of by other specifications that you can plug-in, I would much prefer to focus solely on use of WSDL interfaces. arkin Burdett, David wrote: >Assaf > >My take is that strictly speaking, a choreography is "A definition of the >sequence and conditions in which a set of interactions occur between two >roles". > >Where *interactions* include both individual (e.g. HTTP) messages as well as >higher level concepts such as a single "reliably delivered message" which >actually requires several HTTP message to implement, or at a even higher >level, concepts such as a "Request for Quote". > >Also roles can include, at a low level, general concepts such as a "sender" >and "receiver" which could be appropriate when defining the choreography >associated with a RM protocol, or such business level concepts such as >"buyer" and "seller" when defining a business level protocol/choreography. > >In both cases roles defined in the choreography are abstract and need to be >mapped to the physical instances which will often, but needn't be - as >Martin mentioned, web services. If we say that Choreographies *always* have >to be *between* web services then it precludes the choreography being used >by something that is not a web service, which I don't think we want to do. > >My $0.02c. > >David > > >
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 16:13:59 UTC