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

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

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2003 13:20:28 -0700
Message-ID: <3F18568C.1030702@intalio.com>
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
CC: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

Ugo Corda wrote:

>>If we say that Choreographies *always* have
>>to be *between* web services then it precludes the choreography being used
>>by something that is not a web service, which I don't think we want to do.
>>    
>>
>
>My understanding of the previous discussion is that we want to include web service requesters as legitimate choreography participants. In this case the requester still talks to a web service according to the WSDL interface associated with that service.
>
>Your statement seems to imply extending our choreography scope beyond web services and their requesters (e.g. to include services not described by WSDL). Could you please clarify?
>  
>
No intent whatsoever to extend the scope, only look for the correct 
terminology.

Going back to the trivial example when service requestor sends message 
to service provider. The interface that defines both is given in WSDL, 
so we're using WSDL, we're using relevant Web services technology, and 
still in scope. It would be fair to say that the language "used WSDL" or 
"uses Web services".

But, the statement "between Web services" is incorrect since the trivial 
case is "between a Web service requestor and a Web service provider". 
According to current WS terminology there is only one Web service 
involved (but two distinct roles).

The term "choreography of Web services" may still be correct, even 
though there's only one Web service involved (again, two roles).

How do we resolve that?

arkin

>Thank you,
>Ugo
>  
>
Received on Friday, 18 July 2003 16:20:48 GMT

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