Re: WS-CDL Design sort of question

Hi Steve,

below is your example:

<role-1 b-1>
<role-2 b-2>
<rel-1 role-1 role-2>
<rel-2 role-1 role-2>

This is definitely allowed in WS-CDL. But the interesting question 
is why?

By extending your example we could have 2 ixns, that are identical 
in all info except their relationshipType. Below the 2 ixns 
participate in 2 different relationships even though these relationships
are between the same roles:

<interaction  name="ixn-1"
              channelVariable="ch"
              operation="foo">
   <participate  relationshipType="ns:rel-1"
                 fromRoleTypeRef="ns:role-1" toRoleTypeRef="ns:role-2" />
   ...
</interaction>

<interaction  name="ixn-2"              
              channelVariable="ch"              
              operation="foo">  
   <participate  relationshipType="ns:rel-2"                 
                 fromRoleTypeRef="ns:role-1" toRoleTypeRef="ns:role-2" />
   ...
</interaction>


When I designed this feature I had the following goal:

When binding an abstract WS-CDL collaboration contract, one may want
to use the relationships declared in the abstract level as a way to
*control* the level/type of engagement the collaborating parties
commit.

So, even though one could use different channels (that have 
different bindings), having the relationship being able to change the 
characteristics of an interaction (ie. impose legal constraints), based on 
business rules or operational characteristics (ie. time of day) seemed a 
very desirable feature for WS-CDL.


Best regards,

--
Nick

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com>
To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 3:35 PM
Subject: WS-CDL Design sort of question


> 
> Well folks I am building truly complex WS-CDL documents - using the 
> Pi4Tech tools of course. As with all of these sorts of new things one 
> gains insight or just discovers more questions as one gets more and 
> more experience. So here is my question (I'm sure I shall have more) 
> and I hope that Nick at least can give me some guidance ....
> 
> I have a role called R1 and a role called R2 which have a single 
> behavior each (they could have more but that complicated my question). 
> Can I have two relationships called Rel1 and Rel2 which are between R1 
> and R2? If so what does it mean to have Rel1 and Rel2 which are 
> identical in all but name? Should it be allowed? Do we care - perhaps 
> it does nothing to harm us but nothing to help us either?
> 
> Cheers
> 
> Steve T
> 
> 
>

Received on Thursday, 1 September 2005 23:42:10 UTC