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

Re: Abstract Bindable Choreography

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2003 14:09:03 -0800
Message-ID: <3E8E027F.4050003@intalio.com>
To: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
CC: "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'WS Choreography (E-mail)'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

>     I'm not questioning a formal representation of choreographies
>     in xml (otherwide why are we here). I question the utility of a
>     formal representaion if one is getting too abstract. 
>     If you doent want choreo definitions to be strognly typed to
>     message formats then all i am saying is that i dont thinkwe need
>     to invent anything new. By the way XMI (xml model interchange) is
>     an OMG standard.
>     If you do want strongly typed choreographies (whic are definitely
>     needed for interpop) then lets do the job we were chartered to do!

I agree with Martin.

I don't want to dismiss the value of purely abstract diagrams that 
depict what choreographies should look like without getting into 
details. There is obvious value in doing that. There are also 
technologies that let you do that (UML, XMI, etc) which are 
standardized, royalty free and supported by a variety of tools.

Is there any value in reinventing UML/XMI capabilities in this working 
group? What would we be adding to the already existing body of standards?

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 17:10:22 UTC

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