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

Re: Revised: Mission Statement

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 15:14:21 +0100
Cc: Jim Hendler <hendler@cs.umd.edu>, Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>, "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
To: "Monica J. Martin" <monica.martin@sun.com>
Message-Id: <4DEAD215-B085-11D7-B3B6-000393D13C9A@enigmatec.net>

I had another thought about this whole composition thing and presenting 
choreographies as web services.

We can take the view that a composition based on the web services that 
went to make up a choreography as I stated in a previous email.

We could, however, take an entirely different view such that the WSDL 
interface to a choreography is simply to provide common access to 
interrogation (query) of that choreography or validation of a 
choreography. This way the services that are used to create a 
choreography do not form part of the choreography WSDL interface at all.

And yet another approach is to take the above and combine it with 
something akin to what I wrote previously.

Questions to ask are:

	What do I want a choreography to do for me?
	What is the lifecycle of a choreography?

Cheers

Steve T


On Monday, July 7, 2003, at 03:02  pm, Monica J. Martin wrote:

>
>>
>> Hendler: Steve - in the compositions we've been playing with (some of 
>> which I demoed at the first f2f, and anyone outside a firewall can 
>> play with themselves from http://www.mindswap.org/~evren/composer/, 
>> we do allow the creation of new web services by the composition of 
>> existing ones - and these services themselves can be composed with 
>> others -- the WSDL is accomplished by grounding the service calls in 
>> WSDL (using the DAML-S groundings) and the "choreography" we use is 
>> the DAML-S process model.  (I'm hoping the chor langauge we come up 
>> with will replace the latter eventually)
>>  that said, I agree with you that it probably is not "definitional" 
>> that the composition results in a new "service" per se.  I think I'd 
>> like the idea of using "scope" in there, but don't have specific 
>> words either -- I'll think on this
>>  -JH
>
>
> mm1: Then could we revise this working definition?
>
>> **A service composition is a composition of services that results in 
>> a ANOTHER service. THIS service can be the combination of distinct 
>> parts to form a whole of the same generic type. The web services 
>> could be combined to achieve a specific goal.*
>> *
>
> This does not preclude services within services, or a service set 
> within another service set.
>
> Edit away, Jim.
> Monica
>
>
> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If 
> you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose 
> its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. 
> Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not 
> liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their 
> own antivirus software.
>

This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 10:13:03 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:24 GMT