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

RE: Revised: Mission Statement

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Mon, 7 Jul 2003 10:20:27 -0400
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4060FE983@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com]
> Sent: Monday, July 07, 2003 10:02 AM
> To: Jim Hendler
> Cc: Steve Ross-Talbot; Nickolas Kavantzas; Cummins, Fred A; Martin
> Chapman; Yaron Y. Goland; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Revised: Mission Statement

> 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.*

I appreciate the power of recursion as much as anyone <grin> but defining a
service composition as a composition of services is not likely to win us
great praise  for our grasp of the subtlties here.  Could we say "is a
[concatenation | embedding | nesting | combination | whatever combination ]
..."? Or something  other than "composition" anyway.   Or is "composition"
well-defined somewhere else? 

Also, we need to keep the other parts of the mision statement in mind here.
If, when when one is combining services to present a single WSDL interface
to the outside world and the global state of the interaction does not have
to be exposed, one is doing that O-word thing rather than "Choreography."
How can we distinguish Composition in the BPEL sense from Composition in the
Choreography sense?
Received on Monday, 7 July 2003 10:20:43 UTC

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