- From: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
- Date: Thu, 27 Mar 2003 10:48:10 -0800
- To: "Stephen White" <swhite@SeeBeyond.com>, "Francis McCabe" <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
I think the diagram precisely represent the text description of the use case I originally put up. We can argue whether the doctor use case really need an interleaving dependency. And I'd like to hear from Francis which particular dependencies are inappropriate. >One issue behind diagrams like these is that (a) they presuppose an >ordering relationship between messages between the receptionist and the >patient that is dependent on message between the doctor and the >receptionist. This is not accurate. >[saw]I don't think this is an issue of the diagrams itself. The diagrams >were to help visualize the issues of the discussion. A multi-Party >choreography presupposes the ordering relationship you mention. But the >individual 2-party choreographies do not presuppose this ordering >relationship. The diagrams helped clarify the difference between the two >approaches (at least for me). +1 >And (b) that there is one >receptionist/patient interaction with every receptionist/doctor >interaction, again not sustainable; at least, the interleaving is not >so straightforward. >[saw]This might be an argument against a multi-party choreography or we >should discuss a way of representing complexities of the relationships, if >possible. Again, I intended the diagrams to help facilitate the discussions. +1 >Frank
Received on Thursday, 27 March 2003 13:49:10 UTC