W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2004

Fwd: Editorial changes (requested) and questions (to answer)

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Date: Mon, 26 Apr 2004 16:07:01 +0100
Message-Id: <5EE7E610-9793-11D8-B21D-000393D13C9A@enigmatec.net>
To: WS-Choreography List <public-ws-chor@w3.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> Resent-From: public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org
> From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
> Date: 26 April 2004 15:29:51 BST
> To: public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org
> Cc: David Burdett <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Greg Ritzinger 
> <GRitzinger@novell.com>, Nickolas Kavantzas 
> <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
> Subject: Editorial changes (requested) and questions (to answer)
>
>
> Dear editors,
>
> enclosed are my comments and questions on WS-CDL. These are all based 
> on http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2004Apr/0004.html
>
> Cheers
>
> Steve T
>
>
> *** Editorial ***
>
> General:
> 	Whenever an attribute from an XML schema fragment is used it is 
> difficult to see it. It would be better to italise it so that it 
> stands
> 	out.
>
> Line 208:
> 	"interoperability and interactions between services within one 
> business entity." becomes "interoperability and interactions required 
> to ensure conformance between services within one business entity."
>
> Lines 227-228:
> 	Can you provide an "e.g." to elaborate what Composability might mean?
>
> Lines 232-235:
> 	Can you provide a defintion of "observable state"?
>
> Line 238:
> 	"exchanged information as well." becomes "exchanged information."
>
> Lines 239-240:
> 	Can you provide an example (an e.g.) to elaborate what might 
> constitute an exception?
>
> Line 264:
> 	"trully" becomes "truly"
>
> Line 310:
> 	"where and how to exchange information" becomes "where and how 
> information is exchanged"
>
> Line 314:
> 	"results in exchange of messages" becomes "results in an exchange of 
> messages"
>
> Line 424:
> 	"these type of environment" becomes "these types of environments"
>
> Lines 492-493:
> 	"This allows modeling how the destination of messages is determines, 
> statically and dynamically," becomes
> 	"This allows the modeling of both static and dynamic message 
> destinations ,"
>
> Line 562:
> 	"The passing element allows ConsumerChannel to be sent" becomes "The 
> passing element allows an instance of a ConsumerChannel to be sent"
>
> Line 683:
> 	"defined in Cheography" becomes "defined in Choreography"
>
> Lines 813-814:
> 	Difficult to understand and would benefit from an example.
>
> Line 918:
> 	"defines In the below example," becomes "defined in the example 
> below,"
>
> Line 959-961:
> 	"A Request for Quote (RFQ) Choreography that involved a Buyer Role a 
> request for a quotation for goods and services
> 	to a Supplier to which the Supplier resonding with either a 
> "Quotation" or a "Decline to Quote" message, and"
> 	becomes
> 	"A Request for Quote (RFQ) Choreography that involves a Buyer Role a 
> request for a quotation for goods and services
> 	to a Supplier to which the Supplier resonds with either a "Quotation" 
> or a "Decline to Quote" message, and"
>
> Line 962-963:
> 	"An Order Placement Choreography where the Buyer placed and order for 
> goods or services and the Supplier  either accepted
> 	the order or rejected it"
> 	becomes
> 	"An Order Placement Choreography where the Buyer places an order for 
> goods or services and the Supplier  either accepts
> 	the order or rejects it"
>
> Line 1059-1060:
> 	"did not complete within a required timescale" becomes "did not 
> complete within the required time"
>
> Line 1121:
> 	"used to perform the actual work" becomes "used to description the 
> actual work"
>
> Line 1125:
> 	"A Ordering Structure" becomes "An Ordering Structure"
>
> Line 1243:
> 	"have agreement of the outcome" becomes "have agreement on the 
> outcome"
>
> *** Questions ***
>
> Lines 217-219
> 	Does this mean no WSDL is required? Does it mean same WSDL is 
> required? Does it mean different WSDLs are possible?
>
> Lines 269-270:
> 	Does this mean WSDL2.0 or earlier or both?
>
> Lines 295, 299, 503 and more I'm sure:
> 	Do we need the term "business processes"? Can we just have 
> "processes" since WS-CDL may be used in areas in which the
> 	term business process has less relevance.
>
> Line 321-322:
> 	"Semantics allow the creation of descriptions that can record the 
> semantic definitions of almost every single component in the model"
> 	If it is "almost" then what is excluded?
>
> Line 441, 459:
> 	Dumb question from me. What is the relationship between 'role 
> name="ncname"' and 'role type="qname"'. Maybe I don't understand what 
> ncname is.
> 	I presume qname is qualified name relative to some schema.
>
> Section 2.3.3 (Relationships):
> 	Would I be correct in thinking about a relationship as a static 
> connection between processes?
>
> Line 449 and 547-551:
> 	Does this mean that a channel is a web service and so they are 
> coupled?
>
> Line 534-535:
> 	Is there any reason not to have numbers other than 1 and unlimited?
>
> Line 573:
> 	Is the <token type="tns:purchaseOrderID"/> the effective correlation 
> id in  this example? Is this how correlation will be performed 
> relative to channels?
>
> Line 579-580:
> 	"that can influence the observable behavior" In what way can a WS-CDL 
> document influence behavior since it is a description? Does this only 
> apply
> 	to generation in which case I can see such a relationship?
>
> Lines 602-607:
> 	Do these variables describe the relationship between messages? i.e. A 
> is composed of specific parts of B
> 	Is this correlation?
>
> Line 624:
> 	"a Channel Variable could contain information such as URL to which a 
> message should be sent" Is this a "could"?
>
> Line 674: What is a silent-action used for? Alas no example to 
> illustrate.
>
> Lines 739-745:
> 	Given the definition previously why is "part" valid? Is this an 
> XQuery thing?
>
> Line 748:
> 	Is "prescribes" the right word here?
>
> Lines 872-878:
> 	How do I guard with more than one variable? Is there any notion of 
> existential qualifier associated with this so that I can have a guard
> 	that simply says:
> 			If there exists an x, y and a z then ....
>
> Section 2.4.8.1 Exception Block
> 	How is the guard in an Exception Block work unit related to the 
> non-exceptional work units in the enclosing choreography?
> 	Are they always the same? Are they always non-overlapping? Are they 
> unrelated? Is it user defined? What is the consequence
> 	of un-restriction?
>
> Lines 1094-1099:
> 	What if there are no matches for an guarded work unit in an exception 
> block?
>
> Line 1177:
> 	Activity-Notation+
> 	This allows 1 or more not two or more.
>
> Lines 1211-1212:
> 	Is it possible to model a one way receive?
>
> Lines 1271-1283:
> 	Does this mean that some higher order messaging protocols allow 
> states in the CDL to be inferred rather than captured explicitly? 
> (i.e.
> 	if I know that when I send a message from A to B that B gets the 
> message then I can infer something about the state of B relative to
> 	the receiving of that message.)
>
> Lines 1312-1313:
> 	If align and initiateChoreography are not present what is the default 
> behavior (true or false)?
>
> Lines 1355-1359:
> 	Default behavior again?
>
> Lines 1583-1596:
> 	Not sure why you use the terms "this" and "free" and what they might 
> mean? Is it to indicate that the fromRole is the "this"
> 	and the toRole is "free based on being the initiator (i.e. 
> Directionality?)
Received on Monday, 26 April 2004 11:07:22 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:24 UTC