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

RE: Abstract, portable and concrete choreographies ... a proposed solution??

From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>
Date: Tue, 4 May 2004 17:24:47 -0700
Message-ID: <D15269CBED76D51185280008C73323FA02D40E39@exch-bel6.attachmate.com>
To: "Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@enigmatec.net>
Cc: <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

For me WSCI is the client/server view of a CDL (i.e. I can look at a
self-standing interface)
CDL is the peer-to-peer view (when the number of peers is much greater
than 2 it becomes harder and harder to look at it from a combination of
contracts, this is when you need to express the contract in a ChorDef
(the interfaces are implied in a chordef)).


-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, May 04, 2004 5:11 PM
To: Steve Ross-Talbot; Jean-Jacques Dubray
Cc: Monica.Martin@Sun.COM; david.burdett@commerceone.com;
Subject: RE: Abstract, portable and concrete choreographies ... a
proposed solution??


> Compatibility is between a service end point description (so WSDL)
> and it's implementation. Conformance is across end-points. The former 
> is clearly outside of what we can do in WS-CDL but the latter is very
> what we can do in WS-CDL.

I actually think that WS-CDL goes beyond conformance aspects and
addresses compatibility too.

WSDL by itself only describes individual operations and their associated
MEPs. (So if WSDL describes a one-way operation where WS-CDL expects a
request-response, I can promptly say that the WSDL is no conformant).

But WSDL does not say anything about the sequencing of operations
defined in the interface, and the sequencing comes from the
implementation (e.g. the BPEL behind the WSDL). So WS-CDL is also
concerned with compatibility. 

Received on Tuesday, 4 May 2004 20:27:26 UTC

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