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

Re: Yet Another Choreography Specification

From: Kenneth Andersson <kandersson@SIMTech.a-star.edu.sg>
Date: Wed, 29 Jan 2003 09:30:37 +0800
Message-ID: <001701c2c736$06c461d0$eea47dcb@kennethpc>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, <bill.flood@sybase.com>
Cc: <a.terhofstede@qut.edu.au>, <l.aldred@qut.edu.au>, <m.dumas@qut.edu.au>, <W.M.P.v.d.Aalst@tm.tue.nl>

Bill,

I agree with you. I have also read van der Aalst's work, and it's spot on
the mark of the workflow industry today. The workflow patterns are
especially useful.

However, I do think that WS-Chor will be important, especially for
non-royalty issues. We need an independent body to evaluate and possibly
endorse what's out there.

Two open questions to WS-Chor:
*Although only WSCI and WSCL are official Notes at this point, I assume that
WS-Chor is monitoring most of the initiatives out there. Which are those
according to WS-Chor?
*Which generic features do you use to evaluate?
(I refer to things like the workflow patterns mentioned above.)

Regards,
Kenneth Andersson
Singapore Institute of Manufacturing Technology

----- Original Message -----
From: <bill.flood@sybase.com>
To: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Cc: <W.M.P.v.d.Aalst@tm.tue.nl>; <m.dumas@qut.edu.au>;
<l.aldred@qut.edu.au>; <a.terhofstede@qut.edu.au>
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2003 7:54 AM
Subject: Yet Another Choreography Specification


All,

I seriously considered joining this working group but have deferred that
decision to better try to understand the direction that it is taking.
Examining WSCI, BPEL4WS (XLANG., WSFL), BPML, XPDL, and the host of other
"specifications" or notes does not seem fruitful without some ability to
understand them in context of the entire problem.

What is needed is a neutral justification for defending the arrived-upon
stance.  I'm afraid the alternative is that WS-Chor will simply be another
impotent footnote rendered meaningless by the vendors that have their
favorite specification and the ability to push them forward.  After all,
minus a logical argument, why should one vendor endorsed standard give way
for just another unjustified standard?

An excellent article on this subject can be found at:

     http://tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/research/patterns/ieeewebflow.pdf

The author is on the CC list and my hat is off to him and his colleagues
for this valuable work.  I hope that the vendor community can learn from
their efforts.

This article is really about recognizing the entire range of workflow
patterns that address more than the subsets presented through vendor
specific approaches.  A markup language has been developed (YAWL) that
describes these patterns in XML.  Researchers have also mapped from
vendor-specific markups to the patterns.

The WS-Chor, in my belief, will only be successful if it takes the high
road - a defensible position that avoids pitting one vendor approach
against another (or for that matter one standards organization against
another).  If the WS-Chor can see itself in a position of supporting a
neutral approach to the choreography issue, the industry as a whole will
benefit and I will be there to support it.

Best Regards,

--Bill Flood, Sybase

Supporting documents in a similar vein can be found at:

http://idevnews.com/CaseStudies.asp?ID=52

http://www.daimi.au.dk/CPnets/workshop02/cpn/slides/w_aalst.ppt

http://tmitwww.tm.tue.nl/research/patterns/yawl_qut_report_FIT-TR-2002-06=
Received on Tuesday, 28 January 2003 20:29:41 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:00 GMT