- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:03:12 -0700
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- CC: "'Ricky Ho'" <riho@cisco.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Burdett, David wrote: > > ><DB>I agree, but this type of "policy" information should be > discovered in > >advance either by a human browsing the terms and conditions, or by > searching > >a registry that records this information. Although discovering it by > sending > >a trial message could work, it is not good practice. For example, > what do > >you do if the sender does not accept "test" orders?</DB> > > > > > Why human and not machine-processable? Let's assume we have the > technology to evaluate some of these policies automatically. Why not > use it? > <DB2>Having the technology is easy. The hard part is the > standardization and implemenation required before the technology can > work. For example, for this simple problem to work you need generally > agreed definitions how "I do not accept international orders" is > described as well as have a registry containing this information that > is trusted - UDDI completely fails on the trust issue.</DB2> > It's an "order of" problem. Whether you're trying to standardize one message, a sequence of messages always used together, or a sequence of message + generic policies, the proble you are talking about if I understand correctly is related to the number of interested parties involved and not so much to how many elements you have in the resulting definition. I interpret what you are saying as evidence that WS doesn't work, let's all just wrap up and go home. Those are my use cases. My uses cases may have a lot of problems agreeing on things. They spend a lot of money agreeing on things. Now, they can spend a lot of money agreeing on X, or they can spend the same amount of money agreeing on X+Y. I want to give them Y, because that way they get more bang for their money. So if they can agree on a combination of messages, sequences, rules, policies, etc in one sitting, all the power to them. And if they can't, well - nothing in the specification says they have to do more than what they consider the bare minimum. I am not trying to solve world hunger, but I recognize that a lot of people have the luxury of take-away food and in a way I'm offering them convenience of a value meal. arkin
Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 18:06:46 UTC