[graap-wg] updated draft - composability

[Jon MacLaren]

On Apr 5, 2005, at 5:32 AM, Karl Czajkowski wrote:
> On Apr 04, Jon MacLaren loaded a tape reading:
>> ....
>> S1.1.1 - P6 - Composability with negotiation models.  I never
>> understood this either.  How would you  "base" a negotiation protocol
>> which required some sort of lengthy interaction on WS-Agreement?  I
>> wondered if this just meant that the document format would be used, 
>> and
>> that a different, unrelated messaging protocol would be used.  I'd 
>> love
>> to see an example of what this means.
>>
>
> I think that is right, at least in the sense that the AgreementFactory
> messages would not come into play. I do think that an Agreement could
> appear (or disappear) as a result of this external protocol, so that
> introspection based on WS-Agreement could happen.  Whether this makes
> sense or not would require a judgement call that is hard to make in
> the abstract...

Ok, so that's not what people mean when they say composability, so this 
should definitely be clarified in the spec.  It's just that someone 
could "base a negotiation protocol on the WS-Agreement document 
format".  This is a much less bold claim - but it's probably about as 
far as you can realistically go.

As I said in one of my public comments (which has been decided against) 
- the document format is useful on its own and should appear in a 
separate spec.

I really think that there are too many different things for this to be 
one document.

> karl
>
> -- 
> Karl Czajkowski
> karlcz at univa.com

Jon.