W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Thu, 3 Apr 2003 09:49:52 -0800
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1909@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'Jim Webber'" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Jim

I have a lot of sympathy for what you suggest but if we follow your idea I
honestly do not believe that the result would be usable by Groups such as
RosettaNet and all the other vertical industries that NEED to define a
choreography that can be generally used by their members.

However I do agree that we need to limit our scope so the compromise I would
suggest is to:
1. Define an abstract bindable choreography
2. Define how to bind the choreography to WSDL and XML

That way, the needs of vertical industry groups and realizing limited scope
can both be met.

Chairs, this topic is one we might want to discuss on a conference call.

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Webber [mailto:jim.webber@arjuna.com]
Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 1:20 AM
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]



Jon, Tony,

Furthermore given the name (and charter?) of this group I would suggest that
tying its work to Web services (and perhaps the work of the WSAG) would be
the most sensible thing to do. While the notion of an abstract and bindable
choreography standard does have a certain undeniable appeal, I think this
group should really stick to a specific "binding" if you like (and XML
Schema plus WSDL works for me because you can extend it nicely), and that
should be for Web services (pick the definition that best suits you, but I
guess things like ASN.1 are out of scope).

Jim
Received on Thursday, 3 April 2003 12:50:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:14 GMT