This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 563 - Business Semantic - Variable values
Summary: Business Semantic - Variable values
Status: RESOLVED FIXED
Alias: None
Product: WS Choreography
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Spec: Editorial (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: --
Assignee: Greg Ritzinger
QA Contact:
URL:
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-02-23 12:54 UTC by Greg Ritzinger
Modified: 2005-01-04 20:52 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Greg Ritzinger 2004-02-23 12:54:32 UTC
> ****3) (BUSINESS SEMANTIC)
> Monica. Variable values (3rd bullet): Structure: Sharing of such 
> variables unless global may conflict with contractual agreements 
> between the
> parties. Business semantics outside of the choreography would provide 
> the guidance in this regard.
> David. I don't think this is a problem as: a) Variable values only get 
> shared as a result of exchanging messages, b) before participants agree
> to exchanging messages, they would need to make sure that the 
> information/values being exchanged - as defined by the choreography - is
> acceptable. So really this is part of the negotiation process of how 
> participants will interoperate - a topic which is outside of our scope.
> mm2: No, if you allow dynamic association, it could during the 
> process. This is a very important point - the business semantics can 
> affect the process during its lifecycle.  Suggest you acknowledge the 
> limitation and/or consideration how a choreography could reference 
> back to the business semantic layer during the process.****
Comment 1 Greg Ritzinger 2004-04-26 10:37:11 UTC
This issue is not clear to us, request clarification within the context of the 
apr 3 cdl spec from orignator (monica).
Comment 2 Martin Chapman 2004-09-30 19:44:51 UTC
clarification from Monica:

 Let's give an example that indicates what this discussion was about
 and how the question still applies. That is not to say the agreements 
 and constraints on the 'why' are explicitly known by CDL. For example, 
 take the example in Section 2.4.2 (which I believe is under revision 
 from the August F2F) - See reference to security policy.

 "Channel Variables. For example, a Channel Variable could contain
 information such as the URL to which the message could be sent, the 
 policies that are to be applied, such as security, whether or not 
 reliable messaging is to be used, etc."

 How: Use of PKI signatures of a particular type Why: Why
 authentication is required at this step in the process. Because the 
 business requires a mechanism to audit the parties or their brokers 
 involved. As noted, this may surround the agreement area and therefore 
 outside of CDL. This may not preclude a reference to what could be a 
 guiding principle to WS-CDL.


Comment 3 Martin Chapman 2004-09-30 19:55:44 UTC
bussiness semmantics can be linked to cdl elements through the documentation 
element.

insert at end of section 2.2.4 the following:

"Examples of semantics could include the expression of further conditions and 
constraints not expressible in ws-cdl."