W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2003

Re: Partial executability/ determinism of a Chor description language

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Fri, 30 May 2003 15:03:12 -0700
Message-ID: <3ED7D520.6060502@intalio.com>
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 

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 

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.

Received on Friday, 30 May 2003 18:06:46 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:05 UTC