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

RE: Grounding Choreographies (the atoms) - WAS Simple Choreograph y composition suggestion

From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
Date: Thu, 17 Jul 2003 12:25:06 -0600
Message-ID: <9A4FC925410C024792B85198DF1E97E4061E3265@usmsg03.sagus.com>
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com]
> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:59 PM
> To: Martin Chapman; Steve Ross-Talbot; Champion, Mike
> Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Grounding Choreographies (the atoms) - WAS Simple
> Choreograph y composition suggestion
> 


> While I agree that it should be possible to define a MEP with
> the choreography langauge, I would not like a reliable messaging
> choreography to be merged with a purchasing choreography.  
> I want the purchasing choreography to be expressed with the
> reliable messaging protocol implied, i.e., abstracted out.
> 
> The MEP will have implications to the design of the business
> choreography.  Consequently, it may be necessary to incorporate
> a reference so that the assumptions are clear, but I don't
> see a single choreography incorporating both levels of 
> abstraction in any more complex way.

Maybe we could agree that ...

-- The underlying formalism we use or devise must be rich enough to describe
all known MEPs, and RM protocols, etc.

-- The actual WS-Choreography language must be rich enough to describe the
interaction at the "logical" level, with RM, Security interactions, etc.
abstracted away.

-- Our objective is that business choreography *languages* can be built as a
layer on top of WS-Choreography, not that it should be directly useable by
non-technical business analysts  .  
Received on Thursday, 17 July 2003 14:25:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:25 GMT