Re: Hypermedia workflow

Mark Baker wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 20, 2002 at 04:06:07PM -0500, Champion, Mike wrote:
> > Isn't the whole POINT of BPEL (and friends) to have the choreography
> > exchanged among all parties so that they KNOW what the states and
transition
> > rules are up front, rather than simply having the server tell them
what
> > state they just put the message in?
> > I don't see anything in that quote from Dr. Fielding to imply that
the rules
> > can't be shared, only that the engine(s) work off the
> > resource/representation paradigm.

> Sure, nothing's preventing the rules from being shared.  It's just
> optional.  Perhaps there's some legal reason.

I think there's a critical issue buried in this dialog:
how many parties need to agree on how much detail
of a particular set of coordinated interactions?

It's like, how many parties need to agree on this contract?
Or, some variation on a need-to-know rule?

Or, to put it differently, consider a range of
configuration options from:
0. zero-config (something like Mark's models), to
2. pairwise external interaction agreements with
coordination as internal responsibilities, to
M. many-parties-agreeing-on-all-details-of-all-interactions
(is that the BPEL model?).

Which configuration options would be suited
to which situations?