RE: Partial executability/ determinism of a Chor description language

+1 (I think people say here)

I don't think there is anything else to say!

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Anders W. Tell [mailto:opensource@toolsmiths.se] 
> Sent: Monday, June 02, 2003 8:46 PM
> To: Ricky Ho
> Cc: Burdett, David; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Partial executability/ determinism of a Chor 
> description language
> 
> 
> 
> 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 19:24:27 UTC