- From: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Mar 2003 16:05:36 -0800
- To: jdart@tibco.com, Daniel_Austin@grainger.com
- Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
I was originally thinking that a multi-party choreography can always be broken down into multiple "inter-dependent" bi-party choreography. But I am convinced that this is NOT always possible. See http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2003Mar/0052.html So I think bi-party choreography is a special case of multi-party choreography. Bi-party choreography has some interesting properties that can simplify the modeling. (e.g. Bi-Party choreography doesn't need to worry about dynamic participation because any change of a binding can simply terminate the choreography). I think we should covered multi-party choreography. In additional, we may also need to investigate this special subset called bi-party choreography. Best regards, Ricky At 02:28 PM 3/24/2003 -0800, Jon Dart wrote: >Daniel_Austin@grainger.com wrote: >>2. Multi-party vs. bilateral choreography: there is some skepticism >>that modelling bilateral interactions is sufficient. >> I certainly don't think that is it sufficient to model only bilateral >>transactions. Many business transactions have multiple actors, and we want >>to build standards that will work for common service transaction models. > >Note that it is not exactly all or nothing here. BPSS for example supports >"MultiParty Collaborations", but does so by composing them out of "Binary >Collaborations". > >--Jon > >
Received on Monday, 24 March 2003 19:05:51 UTC