- From: Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org>
- Date: Wed, 26 May 2004 16:11:45 +0200 (MEST)
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
(sending to the tech list) -- Yves Lafon - W3C "Baroula que barouleras, au tiéu toujou t'entourneras." ---------- Forwarded message ---------- Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 13:34:06 -0600 From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM> Subject: [ws-chor] 5/25/2004: Clarifications Requested on Issues Resent-Date: Tue, 25 May 2004 15:34:13 -0400 (EDT) Resent-From: member-ws-chor@w3.org Issue 563: From a technical standpoint, if the variables can be defined and/or assigned dynamically during the choreography, a business level process definition may restrict (constraints and business-level conditionality): a. If values are defined at all. b. Those values can be shared. c. Those values can be changed/assigned during the choreography. d. When those values can be assigned during the choreography. Issue 565: Address in banana calculus. Still maintain exceptions are propagated up and down the chain. Exceptions can occur at work units not just at choreography level. Issue 566: Even though WS-CDL can define an Acknowledgement message, specific semantics apply to a business signal in an understood business transaction patterns. For example, a Receipt Acknowledgement provides verification that the message has been received and passed a grammar, syntactic and schema validation. The use of acknowledgement evidences legal and economic requirements. It is not necessary that CDL understand these as it only understands 'a message'. Possible that a constraint or conditions could be available to WS-CDL. Issue 610: The relationship may be constrained by other than what exists in WS-CDL. Issue 612: Handled by banana calculus and related to Issue 565 on propagation. May wish to close as duplicate. Issue 614: Clarify that the finalizer block applies to a choreography not a work unit or set of activities. Could a finalizer block apply to a work unit(s) or only a choreography? If not, just close this issue. Issue 615: Example was deleted so delete this one.
Received on Wednesday, 26 May 2004 10:12:43 UTC