- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Tue, 12 Oct 2004 09:55:36 -0700
- To: "WS Choreography (E-mail)" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
As I am pending a response from Steve and Nick, I am posting some additional details. Since Issue 687.3 (item 3 only still open) and 615 are related, I have combined them in this response. > Martin, 7 October 2004 to SRT and NK: > >> Here is the remaining item we briefly discussed 30 Sept 2004. >> >> 3. In the F2F in March 2004, we indicated we did not acknowledge >> 'dependent' choreographies (the blue boxes) that exist in the package >> or root (blue box). How then can we handle dependencies between >> imported, performed and choreographies with root=false? >> >> As I was asked to do, I need a bit more information to respond so >> that this can be clarified or closed: >> >> 1. The current 22 Sept 2004 specification indicates that the bind >> variables if available between the performing and performed >> choreographies >> should be of the same participant type. It is often the case that, >> for example, a retailer takes on several roles >> across these composed choreographies. The Seller for the sale, the >> distributor for the warehouse, etc. Does the >> bind element enforce the same participant type via the semantics (The >> Role Types within a single bind element MUST be carried out by the >> same party, hence they MUST belong to the same Participant Type)? >> >> 2. In the Choreography package, if we do not have priority, can we >> enforce that the performed choreography can not be used unless >> enclosed in the enclosing >> choreography? If the answer is yes and the semantics support that, we >> can close 687.3. >> Otherwise, a priority or an enforceable sequence may be required. I >> am attempting to differentiate two choreographies in progress in the >> same >> package vs. one choreography in use and completes before the next >> choreography does. If we answer, we can also close Issue 615. Thank you. >
Received on Tuesday, 12 October 2004 16:55:38 UTC