RE: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973

+1
abbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Gary Brown
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 9:17 AM
> To: Martin Chapman; 'WS-Choreography List'
> Subject: Re: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973
> 
> 
> 
> I think the current wording is fair, because we don't want a 
> situation where 
> a particular choreography element behaves differently in two 
> implementations, simply on the basis of whether an optional 
> extension is 
> supported by one of the implementations.
> 
> In the example given below, this information (digital 
> signature) is simply 
> another factor that can be taken into account to determine whether a 
> choreography is valid. However, how the particular 
> implementation chooses to 
> use that information (i.e. don't permit the choreography 
> description to be 
> used) is implementation specific, and should not affect the 
> semantics of an 
> individual element in that description.
> 
> I think preserving the semantics of the core elements is 
> fundamental to 
> ensuring inter-operability.
> 
> Regards
> Gary
> 
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
> To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
> Sent: Thursday, August 04, 2005 2:01 PM
> Subject: FW: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973
> 
> 
> 
> 
> any views on this?
> 
> My own take is that we don't really define parsing semantics 
> only endpoint/execution semnatics, but I do sort of see the 
> point given the current language.
> 
> Martin.
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bjoern Hoehrmann [mailto:derhoermi@gmx.net]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 03, 2005 9:09 PM
> To: Martin Chapman
> Cc: public-ws-chor-comments@w3.org
> Subject: Re: W3C WS-Choreo WG - Issue 973
> 
> 
> * Martin Chapman wrote:
> >Well I can define an extension called "foo" and in the 
> description of 
> >foo it could redefine the semantics of something in the cdl 
> namespace. 
> >For example "foo should be used instead of perform and its 
> behaviour is
> 
> >not to invoke the indicated choreography".  This would not 
> be allowed 
> >as it contradicts the specs definition of perform.
> 
> Okay, so, let's say I create a XML DSig extension where an 
> ds:Signature element is added as last child of 
> cdl:choreography. Implementations of this extension are 
> required to ignore the cdl:choreography element if the 
> Signature is not valid. This would seem to contradict the 
> semantics of the cdl:choreography element since 
> implementations are not allowed to ignore it under these 
> conditions. So making such a XML DSig extension is not 
> allowed. Correct?
> -- 
> Björn Höhrmann · mailto:bjoern@hoehrmann.de · 
> http://bjoern.hoehrmann.de Weinh. Str. 22 · > Telefon: 
> +49(0)621/4309674 · http://www.bjoernsworld.de 68309 Mannheim 
> · PGP Pub. KeyID: 0xA4357E78 · http://www.websitedev.de/
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 4 August 2005 13:43:36 UTC