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

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

From: Fletcher, Tony <Tony.Fletcher@choreology.com>
Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2003 14:14:32 +0100
Message-ID: <221369570DEDF346AE42821041345E8912A68F@exchange1.corp.choreology.com>
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "Jim Webber" <jim.webber@arjuna.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
David et al,
I am effectively agreeing with David on the principles we should attempt
to follow on this issue.
Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
Business transaction management software for application coordination
Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787   Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785  Mobile: +44 (0)
7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Burdett, David
Sent: 03 April 2003 18:50
To: 'Jim Webber'; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: Abstract messages [Was: Multi-Party Binding Scenario]


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.


-----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
tying its work to Web services (and perhaps the work of the WSAG) would
the most sensible thing to do. While the notion of an abstract and
choreography standard does have a certain undeniable appeal, I think
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
should be for Web services (pick the definition that best suits you, but
guess things like ASN.1 are out of scope). 

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 08:14:45 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:58 UTC