- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2003 14:21:33 -0700
- To: jdart@tibco.com
- CC: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Jon Dart wrote: > Assaf Arkin wrote: > >> A machine processible language would. So if you look at something >> like WSCI or BPEL4WS abstract, I can easily run it through a >> validator to check for correctness. > > > Yes, you could run it through a validator of some kind, but can you > write a validator that will tell you if a BPEL choreography (for > example) can deadlock or not? Having it machine-readable is one thing: > having interesting properties like this decidable by machine is > another issue. If it's fairly simple, and most choreographies are, then you can easily do that. If it's more complicated you need to break it down and use heuristic and you can tell with some level of confidence. If I can determine that it's most likely deadlock free, that's good enough for me. It's much better than having a choreography that's prone to deadlock and not knowing about it. Because of the way it's structured, it's easy to analyze it and even break it down to different activities and analyze them separately and then as a whole. arkin > > --Jon >
Received on Wednesday, 30 July 2003 17:22:26 UTC