- From: Anders W. Tell <opensource@toolsmiths.se>
- Date: Mon, 02 Jun 2003 21:46:17 +0200
- To: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
- Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Sorry to but in again, but the topic is too interesting for me to pass. Ricky Ho wrote: > If Choreography is a sequence of message exchange that every involved > party agree to follow, then it is a "contract". Is WSDL a "contract" > ? (I think so). Its an interesting issue whether a specification is a contract and legally binding. Usually a business contracts involves two or more partners and a technical/ software/ programming language contract is not the same as a business agreement. A few use cases: * A WSDL file on my disk is usually not a contract and legally binding * A signed WSDL is usually not a contract and legally binding when the signature indicates *authorship* and *Authenticity of Origin*. * A signed WSDL with two parties where the signature indicates an *Intention* of the signers to adhere to the semantics in the WSDL is usually an agreement and legally binding. * When the signers also adds that they have the *capacity/capability* to honour the semantics is even more legally binding and have a greater legal effect. (if you sign an agreement knowing the you cannot perform may get you into trouble). * A reusable specification almost always contain only a party and a signature of *authorship* and *Authenticity of Origin*. Otherwise its not reusable but referencable. My 2cents /cheers Anders
Received on Monday, 2 June 2003 15:48:42 UTC