- From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- Date: Mon, 24 Feb 2003 08:58:15 -0800
- To: Christopher B Ferris <chrisfer@us.ibm.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
- Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC079B1145@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
I agree also especially as MEPs are likely to be reusable components that are part of a longer "conversation". David -----Original Message----- From: Christopher B Ferris [mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com] Sent: Monday, February 24, 2003 5:00 AM To: www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: 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 > > > > > >
Received on Monday, 24 February 2003 11:58:52 UTC