1001 2005-01-10 16:01:05 +0000 CORRELATION OF CHANNEL INSTANCES 2005-09-28 21:33:17 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS Choreography Last Call Comment: Confirmed Closed unspecified PC Windows 2000 CLOSED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jan/0006.html P2 normal -- 1496 1 martin.chapman martin.chapman martin.chapman oldest_to_newest 2811 0 martin.chapman 2005-01-10 16:01:05 +0000 Currently it is not possible to monitor messages for different channel instances, and associate those separate channel instances to the same choreography session. Correlation information is required to bind the multiple channel instances to the same choreography session. Messages on a particular instance of a channel type should also not be expected to all have the same 'identity' field, as a means of correlating the message to the channel instance. This places unnecessary constraints on the author of a business protocol. Regards Gary and Steve 4161 1 martin.chapman 2005-02-14 20:35:52 +0000 From meeting on 11-jan-05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jan/att-0002/2005-01- 11_WS-Chor_Notes.txt: Discussion deferred as deemed to be a technical issue. 4017 2 martin.chapman 2005-03-08 10:37:04 +0000 Discussed at feb-mar 05 F2F: Issue 1001 http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1001 Summary: CORRELATION OF CHANNEL INSTANCES URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jan/0006.html Proposal Outline: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Feb/0032.html Gary: Outlines proposal above NOTE: To establish the association with the channel instance, the message that initializes the alternate identity must also contain the value of at least one other identity field that is associated with that channel instance. <m2> 877 is Monica (changed phones) CONSENSUS that this issue does need to be resolved for CDL V1.0 (or whatever the number is) Nick writes on board: <choreo> <session> <channel A> <channel B> </session> </choreo> Summary: Clear need for operators on channels (types and/or instances) to define relationships. We need to understand clearly what it is that we need to express and then decide where it needs to be documented in a CDL specification. Steve: summarised above and suggested that 1026 and 1027 are then not issues anymore because they get solved by solving 1001 ... We shall come back to these two issues to check Nick: Summarises why it is not enough with the proposal from Enigmatec. An issue of finalization was raised and Charlton raised issue of monitoring. Steve: After Nick's comments Steve says that we need to handle both identity name and conversation name. This then enables proposal for 1001 for both 1001 and 1026 5000 3 martin.chapman 2005-07-20 14:40:41 +0000 proposal agreed at meeting on 31 may 05: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/5/05/31-minutes.html Editors report incorporation into spec at jun/jul f2f: http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/chor/5/06/F2Fminutes.html Moved to closed. 6558 4 martin.chapman 2005-09-28 21:33:17 +0000 changed to closed confirm since editors have incorporated into spec