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

Re: Choreography Definition Language for Web Services [was: Re: T he specs we need (was, RE: Correlation Requirements] !***!

From: Andrew Berry <andyb@whyanbeel.net>
Date: Sun, 24 Aug 2003 12:43:20 +1000
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'ygoland@bea.com'" <ygoland@bea.com>, "'Nickolas Kavantzas'" <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.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
To: "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>
Message-Id: <B938158C-D5DC-11D7-9356-0003936786BC@whyanbeel.net>

On Thursday, August 21, 2003, at 12:12  AM, Cummins, Fred A wrote:

> I agree with David's approach. I personally believe we should develop 
> a solution that has broad
> application--it will survive longer and be more robust.  However, if 
> you want to constrain the
> solution to "web services," you need to define what "web services" 
> is/are.  HTTP and SOAP
> are current implementations.  I expect this to evolve, and I expect 
> there will be other
> techniques that should fit under the choreography and business process 
> specifications.  I
> am also concerned that I should be able to develop applications and 
> define business processes
> that are independent ofhow their messages are exchanged--so they may 
> use "web services"
> or MOM, transparently.


Received on Saturday, 23 August 2003 22:41:30 UTC

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