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

Re: Choreography Definition Language for Web Services [was: Re: The specs we need (was, RE: Correlation Requirements]

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:18:18 -0700
Message-ID: <3F3A9D0A.5020904@intalio.com>
To: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
CC: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'Cummins, Fred A'" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, "'Keith Swenson'" <KSwenson@fsw.fujitsu.com>, "'Monica Martin'" <monica.martin@sun.com>, "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, jdart@tibco.com, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@seebeyond.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org


It seems to me that we need to be practical in our approach and focus on 
solving a problem in the world of WS. If in the future we would find a 
different architecture, we can always carry the lessons learned and work 
out a solution for that architecture. But at this point I just don't see 
the benefit of doing anything that is not WS related.

Nickolas Kavantzas wrote:

> I am not really sure why we need to have 2 docs (1. CHOREOGRAPHY 
> I believe that we should create a CHOREOGRAPHY DEFINITION LANGUAGE for 
> *Web Services* (*CDL4WS*) that uses WSDL 1.2/XML Schema features to 
> bind the abstract choreography constructs to concrete things like 
> data-types, message formats/protocols, endpoint-references, etc.
> The CDL4WS can provide a lot of value add to the Web Services user 
> community compared to what exists now.
> BTW, BPEL4WS has taken a similar design approach, where they architect 
> their specs for the WS-stack by using all WS-existing specs and 
> extending/creating new ones only when necessary. As a result of this 
> approach they have created "Business Process Execution Language* for 
> Web Services"* and not just "Business Process Execution Language".
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:49:34 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:00 UTC