- From: Lipton, Paul <Paul.Lipton@ca.com>
- Date: Sun, 30 Mar 2003 15:59:23 -0500
- To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Hi all, Here is the use case that I presented at the F2F. I hope that it is useful to the group and worthy of some consideration. My use case scenario is concerned with four primary issues: 1. Negotiation 2. Dynamic relationships or at least unexpected messages between participants 3. Referral 4. Monitoring and non-repudiation The theme behind this use case is provisioning. Company A is an acquisitive company and/or has rapid turnover of personnel. Thus, provisioning and integrating new personnel into the enterprise is an important and expensive business process involving soft provisioning (assigning phone numbers, email addresses, passwords, etc.) and hard provisioning (junior executive level desk, bookshelf, PC, company cell phone of a certain type with junior level executive cell plan, etc.). The example called for a new employee to receive the usual junior executive faux-oak desk. After checking internal resources that are outside of this use case (perhaps empty offices or warehouses within the company), no suitable desk is found. So, a choreography is "initiated" in which an order is placed with one of the approved suppliers (Company B) registered in the private UDDI registry of Company A. A -> B Company B does not have faux-oak desks, but instead of reporting zero faux-oak desks (the usual choreography being to respond with quantity available), company B responds with a counter-offer consisting of a lovely faux-walnut desk for less money. This is clearly a form of negotiation. A <- B This could go back and forth for awhile, but alternately if company A says no and insists of faux-oak (faux-walnut is for middle level executives), then Company B may offer to refer company A to company C perhaps for a fee or perhaps as part of a carefully monitored reciprocal relationship. Company A may agree to be referred, and dynamically include company C in the process. A -> C To keep this short, let's assume that C says yes, and the transaction between A and C is completed after a number of message exchanges. A <- C This begs some questions, at least in my mind. And, I would certainly appreciate hearing your various perspectives to help me understand the possibilities better: 1. How does company B monitor the choreography between A and C? Does the referrer have to sit in the middle and be a proxy or can there be some other way? 2. Does a choreography description need some way to describe referral or negotiation or forbid these things when they are not desired? 3. At least in multi-party situations, is there a way to monitor participants that don't obey the choreography? Is it always up to a party to monitor things from its own point of view, and if so, how does non-repudiation work in the context of choreography? How can I prove that another company broke the rules? Thanks, Paul Paul Lipton Technology Strategist, Office of the CTO Technology Leader, Field Services Group Computer Associates P: +1 908 874-9479 F: +1 908 874-9178 E: paul.lipton@ca.com
Received on Sunday, 30 March 2003 15:59:31 UTC