- From: Kohei Honda <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>
- Date: Tue, 22 Mar 2005 15:25:35 +0000
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
- CC: Kohei Honda <kohei@dcs.qmul.ac.uk>, Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, Gary Brown <gary@enigmatec.net>
A tiny refinement of my phrasing. What I wrote:
>
> "A complete condition MUST be possible to be matched in all Roles that
> participate in the Choreography, for which we assume an appropriate
> idea of synchronisation."
>
may better be:
"A complete condition MUST be possible to be matched in all Roles that
participate in the Choreography, for which we assume that consistent,
unanimous agreement among the Roles can be reached on the current
state of the complete condition by the help of, for example, an
appropriate synchronisation protocol."
Note by saying "unanimous agreement" we assume each process is working all
right, even if there are exceptional circumstances: if some process ceases
to work or goes crazy, then we cannot use this mechanism, we need e.g.
voting, but this detail may not be suitable for CDL description. I note
this for drawing attention to possible scenarios the idea described above
can cope with.
kohei
Received on Tuesday, 22 March 2005 15:25:39 UTC