This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
> ****Section 3.4.2.1: > Monica. What I believe you are saying is, that the variables that act > on the choreography will change but the choreography definition itself > would > not change. However, the choreography and its composition may be > changed to augment specific sequences (and in essence become another > choreography). Clarify verbiage. > David. I think you've basically got it! As long as the sequence and > conditions defined does not change, the choreography definition is the > same, even though the variables may be defined differently. However if > you augment a choreography and so change the sequence and > conditions in which messages are exchanged, then the choreography will > become a different choreography. I'm not sure how to change the > words though to make it clearer . > mm2: Indicate that if the variables require a change in the sequence > or conditions whereby messages are exchanged, another choreography is > created. This raises the question of the relationship of a defined > choreography and a change of it during the process. Hmm.....relates to > my other points.****
Relates to model ovewview text as so is dependapt on what happened to the model overview document.
Clarification from Monica: mm2: Indicate that if the variables require a change in the sequence or conditions whereby messages are exchanged, another choreography is created..... (July 24 version) Section 1.2 clarifies in part what was of concern above: "This means that, as long as the "observable" sequence does not change, the rules and logic followed within the domain of control can change at will." Suggest you add a rule in Section 2.4.2 at the end related to Variables that indicates what is described in Section 1.2 and is inline with my original request in this issue.