RE: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous" definitions]

I still REALLY do not like defining one as the negation of the other --
at least if that's all you do.  If you really feel driven to do it that
way, however, perhaps it would be possible to define it that way in the
first sentence and then add some explanatory material for the
edification of the person who is really interested in that term in
particular. 
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] 
Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 3:35 PM
To: Walden Mathews; Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"
definitions]


 

	-----Original Message-----
	From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org
[mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Walden Mathews
	Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 10:25 AM
	To: Christopher B Ferris; www-ws-arch@w3.org
	Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on
"synchronous" definitions]
	
	
	I don't understand, but I want to.
	 
	What would be an example of a oneway message exchange that was
	synchronous?  One that was asynchronous?  Actually, if it's
oneway, can
	you really call it an exchange? 
	 
	Good question, since the definition tend to imply its
reciprocal: exchange one thing for another. But the term exchange as a
noun is often used for where exchanges can be reciprocal or not
(exchange something for nothing). So if you only allow one-way I would
say it's not an exchange. But if you allow one-way and two-way, then the
term exchange would be correct in both cases since it covers both
possibilities.
	 
	Can you elaborate on why the definitions should not be
complementary?
	There a lots of examples that seem to work: typical vs atypical,
sexual vs
	asexual.  What's wrong/different about this?
	 
	The definition of sexual and asexual don't overlap in the sense
that one is always the opposite of another. Neither does synchronous and
asynchronous, but in our specific case they are sopposed to overlap, so
I also agree that defining one as the negation of the other is best.
	 
	arkin
	 
	Thanks,
	 
	Walden Mathews

		----- Original Message ----- 
		From: Christopher B Ferris <mailto:chrisfer@us.ibm.com>

		To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
		Sent: Saturday, March 15, 2003 12:58 PM
		Subject: Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on
"synchronous" definitions]
		
		

		I'm certainly not at all comfortable with Ugo's
definition because it only addresses request/response 
		and does not at all scale to either multi-party
exchanges (as Geoff points out) or to 
		a simple oneway message exchange, which most certainly
CAN be asynchronous. In fact, 
		the definition we seem to have chosen cannot be
translated into either of these forms of MEP. 
		
		Secondly, I think it would be a mistake to simply take
one term and make it the opposite or 
		logical not of the other. 
		
		My $0.02 USD. 
		
		Christopher Ferris
		Architect, Emerging e-business Industry Architecture
		email: chrisfer@us.ibm.com
		phone: +1 508 234 3624 
		
		
		
Geoff Arnold <Geoff.Arnold@Sun.COM> 
Sent by: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 

03/15/2003 02:55 AM 

To
www-ws-arch@w3.org 
cc
Subject
Re: Friendly amendment #2c [Re: Straw poll on "synchronous"
definitions]	

		




		
		Two quick questions:
		
		(1) Do people feel that we're converging on language
which
		addresses both two-party and multi-party interactions?
		If not, does that matter?
		
		(2) Are we confident that our definition is robust
		enough to be adopted by the choreography folks?