- From: Fletcher, Tony <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>
- Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 10:20:42 +0100
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Dear David et al, Yes I agree with you that we will need to develop a model (abstract object or otherwise) for each of these key pieces of the puzzle. I was merely reacting to the suggestion that role and responsibility were effectively the same thing as far as we were concerned. This is actually not an unreasonable suggestion. In many instances the 'entity' (/participant?) that assumes a role will also assume all the responsibilities associated with that role. We could limit the WS-Chor language to only support that possibility. But that is a limitation. In general an 'entity'(/participant) could assume responsibility for a role, but delegate the execution of the actions to another entity, or an entity could perform the actions of a role, but pass (legal) responsibility to another entity. Suggested conclusion: 1) That we should have separate definitions for "role" and "responsibility" in our glossary (and I have made a suggestion to Monica already). 2) That we should decide whether, or not, it is a requirement that the language should be a able to show the assignment of role activity and role responsibility to different entities. Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Cohesions 1.0 (TM) Business transaction management software for application coordination Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony.fletcher@choreology.com (Home: amfletcher@iee.org) -----Original Message----- From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] Sent: 13 May 2003 19:54 To: Fletcher, Tony; public-ws-chor@w3.org Subject: Abstract Object Model (was: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement Tony Reading your email made me think that perhaps we need to develop an abstract object model of the different "pieces", e.g. role, choreography, message, service, interaction etc. Then we can carve out the subset that is related to choreography that also needs to be exchanged with others for interoperability and serialize it as XML. Wouldn't we then have our choreography language? The point is talking about individual abstract concepts such as those you mention is like showing a few pieces of the jigsaw puzzle withouth seeing the whole picture. On the other hand, this model ought to reflect multiple specs to be really useful which perhaps would be too big an task to attempt. ... or is this completely off beam ... David -----Original Message----- From: Fletcher, Tony [mailto:Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com] Sent: Monday, May 12, 2003 2:40 AM To: public-ws-chor@w3.org Subject: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement Dear Colleagues, Just a small nitpick on the nitpick. I think that it has been pointed out to me (and so I pass this on) that role and responsibility are not the same, and may need to be separately addressed in a choreography as one 'entity' may have responsibility for a role but 'delegate' that role to some other entity (or the other way around - the official role owner may delegate responsibility for execution to another 'entity') Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Cohesions 1.0 (TM) Business transaction management software for application coordination Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX UK Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787 Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 tony.fletcher@choreology.com (Home: amfletcher@iee.org) -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Patil, Sanjaykumar Sent: 10 May 2003 00:07 To: Nickolas Kavantzas; Jean-Jacques Dubray Cc: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com; public-ws-chor@w3.org Subject: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement This is good. Some nitpicking: - Can we say "global view" instead of "common view". There is a difference, isn't it. - Aren't role and responsibility the same? Can we instead say "roles and their interactions are clearly defined ..." - The auomatable, machine-readable attributes are important. But we need to identify what exactly needs to be machine readable (the definition of global view?) and what needs to be automatable (the process of deriving each participants obligations from the global view?) However this definition gives me a feeling that we are getting there. Sanjay Patil Distinguished Engineer sanjay.patil@iona.com ------------------------------------------------------- IONA Technologies 2350 Mission College Blvd. Suite 650 Santa Clara, CA 95054 Tel: (408) 350 9619 Fax: (408) 350 9501 ------------------------------------------------------- Making Software Work Together TM
Received on Friday, 16 May 2003 05:21:01 UTC