RE: Terminology Question

+1, an MEP is not supposed to extend to the likes of a conversation. I 
think that we 
should limit as Amy/Arkin suggest, to capture the basic communication 
idiom.

Cheers,

Christopher Ferris
Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
phone: +1 508 234 3624

www-ws-arch-request@w3.org wrote on 02/23/2003 07:13:59 PM:

> David,
> 
> I was about to raise an issue regarding the use of MEP in the WSA 
document.
> 
> A message exchange pattern can be as simple as a WSDL operation, but in 
fact can also be as 
> complex as a long-lasting multi-party choreography. Unless we restrict 
the definition of MEP, I 
> would say that Wsb services choreography also addresses MEPs and MEP is 
just another way to define
> a conversation. And in fact several people have proposed extending MEPs 
to the point where they 
> tread into the space of choreography.
> 
> I suggest that we formally define WSDL as capturing a specific type of 
MEP which, as Amy said 
> before, attempts to capture the basic communication idioms (synch, 
asynch, unicast and multicast) 
> with the restriction that each WSDL MEP contains the minimal number of 
messages required for such 
> an idiom. A choreography language would then provide more complex MEPs 
using these communication idioms.
> 
> arkin
> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On 
Behalf Of Burdett, David
> Sent: Sunday, February 23, 2003 3:56 PM
> To: jim@ironringsoftware.com; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Terminology Question

> For what it's worth here's are my ideas based on what other groups such 
as ebXML and WS 
> Choreography tend to use (I am off-line and so can't quote) Really there 
are two levels:
> 1. Message Exchange Patterns are a short exchange of messages such as 
one-way or request-response,
> together with associated acknowledgement/receipt messages.
> 2. A Conversation consists of a combination of Message Exchange Patterns 
where all the messages 
> are related in some way.
> The word "Conversation" is used because the exchange of information can 
consist of an 
> indeterminate number of exchanges of information as in a real 
conversation between people. A 
> classic example of a conversation is the sequence of messages exchanged 
to place and/or change an order:
> BUYER                     SELLER 
>        Order --------> 
>              <-------- Order Response 
> Change Order --------> 
>              <-------- Change Order Response 
> ... repeat change order as required ... 
> Cancel Order --------> (only if required) 
>              <-------- Cancel Order Response 
> Thoughts? 
> David 
> 

> -----Original Message----- 
> From: jim.murphy@pobox.com [mailto:jim.murphy@pobox.com] 
> Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 1:59 PM 
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> Subject: RE: Terminology Question 
> 

> So the collection of messages that manifest the exchange would be 
> called... 
> Jim Murphy 
> Mindreef, Inc. 
> http://www.mindreef.com 
> 

> > -----Original Message----- 
> > From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] 
> On 
> > Behalf Of Francis McCabe 
> > Sent: Friday, February 21, 2003 4:34 PM 
> > To: jim@ironringsoftware.com 
> > Cc: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
> > Subject: Re: Terminology Question 
> > 
> > 
> > This is a message exchange pattern 
> > 
> > On Friday, February 21, 2003, at 01:30  PM, <jim.murphy@pobox.com> 
> > wrote: 
> > 
> > > 
> > > Speaking of definitions, what term are folks using to describe the 
> > > collection of messages that occur when an operation is invoked.  For 

> > > the 
> > > typical input/output operations you would have 2, a request and a 
> > > response. In a one-way you would have 1, in a solicit response you 
> > > would 
> > > have n etc. 
> > > 
> > > What moniker would y'all recommend for this collection: 
> > > 
> > > 1.  Exchange 
> > > 2.  Conversation 
> > > 3. ??? 
> > > 
> > > Something that indicates the fact that these messages are part of 
> the 
> > > same operation is the critical part for me. 
> > > 
> > > Thanks. 
> > > 
> > > Jim Murphy 
> > > Mindreef, Inc. 
> > > http://www.mindreef.com 
> > > 
> > >