- From: bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 09:59:38 -0600
- To: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote: > I think that what Assaf is expressing is that BPSS and the paper I > published on ebPML.org describe message exchange with no specific point > of view (from a party perspective), therefore appearing to be at the > "center". I understand, but think there are a number of interesting issues arising from this difference. > So instead of introducing this notion of "centralized sequence of > exchange" I think it is fair to say that BPSS offers a "neutral" view of > the choreography while BPEL/BPML and WSCI offers and "interface-bound" > or "party-specific" view of the collaboration. I agree with that formulation to some extent. But one could also describe the party-specific models as focusing on one party's internal procedural workflow and expecting the other party to conform. > In all cases, the goal is more or less to achieve state alignment > between collaborating parties. Is it? Are the internal activities really aimed at state alignment between collaborating parties? Yet another way to think about it is the difference between procedural and conversational workflow models - where procedural = command-and-control and conversational = collaboration. -Bob Haugen
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 11:00:36 UTC