This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
> ****WILL BE HANDLED IN DISUSSION REGARDING ABSTRACT AND MAPPING TO > WSDL. DISCUSSION ALREADY STARTED.**** Section 3.6: > (BUSINESS SEMANTIC) > Monica. Work Unit (acknowledge order): How can a choreography > understand a signal if it is not currently understood in WSDL? > /David. Choreographies, on their own, don't understand anything since > they are not "executed". They are just a statement of what each > participant must do in order to realize interoperability. Only when > you have a "concrete" choreography would you need to go down to the > WSDL level. > mm2: David, as we discussed last week, WSDL can also be the abstract > and not include the binding information. So, back to my question. I > believe this is another item where the business semantic level > understands the difference between a signal and a message. The CDL > just understands another message exchange is going occur. The > substance of that difference is understood in the context of the > business transaction patterns that exist at a higher level than CDL.
This issue is not clear to us, request clarification within the context of the apr 3 cdl spec from orignator (monica)
clarification from Monica: It was decided that a signal is just another message in CDL as evidenced by the reference to "POAcknowledge" which is actually a signal that could specify a PO message was received. Note that there is a difference between a message acknowledgment and a business acknowledgment. The specification discusses what equates to a technical acknowledgment which is within the WS-CDL's scope. A business acknowledgment differs, i.e. a business Receipt Acknowledgment may not be sent until the legibility of the document and document envelope are determined. I see that we have discussed this in the specification if an error occurs as a 'validation error.' (2.4.8.1) From a business perspective, the partner may wish to get an early read on whether to proceed, and also react more quickly. The example cited above assists with that. Team can decide if they wish to explicitly state in the specification (as informational text). It doesn't appear at this time to refer to any change in semantics or the language. Note that David Burdett asked about message types and this was not accepted (June 2004 discussion after this issue was logged).
We agree that there are no special signals defined by cdl and that all application messages have to be expressed and visible in wsdl; furthermore cdl will not/does not define any standard application message types. Monica to propose some text.
from Monica: Add in Section 2.4.5, third bullet early in the section: "In WS-CDL, application messages are expressed and visible in WSDL rather than defined as explicit standardized message types. For example, a message acknowledgment is viewed as an application message." Otherwise, if preferred, add in Section 2.4.5.1. Thank you. http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Oct/0010.html
The editors feel that the proposed statement is out of context for section 2.4.5 but will reconsider it if a more appropriate section of the document is suggested. Perhaps the proposed statement belongs in the Primer.