RE: Burdett ML gap/fit analysis - first cut

Ugo

I was really thinking more of the abstract binding where a choreography is
bound to abstract messages. Except I am *not sure* that port/interface
levels are sufficiently abstract as you could have the same sequence of
messages exchanged for the same purpose only they go between services with
different port types/interfaces.

I think there are three levels:
1. The pure choreography - i.e. independent of the message formats and also
the port types/interfaces
2. Choreography bound to an abstract interface/port type
3. Interface/port type bound to a specific implementation

Do these levels make sense?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 30, 2003 12:15 PM
To: Burdett, David; jdart@tibco.com
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Burdett ML gap/fit analysis - first cut



Dave,
You said:

> Also a choreography should be able to work with multiple different message
> formats therefore including a reference to single message format directly
> into the choreography could be problematical.

This depends on at which level you are talking about messages. If you are
talking at the level of abstract messages (i.e. portType/Interface level in
WSDL), then our choreography is based on those message descriptions (this
comes directly from our own definition of Web services choreography, i.e.
the fact that it is grounded on WSDL) and it should be legitimate to talk
about those abstract message formats within the choreography itself.

If you are talking about concrete message formats (after the WSDL interfaces
defined in the choreography are bound to specific end points) then I agree
with you that the choreography should not depend on them.

Ugo

Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 15:42:47 UTC