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

RE: Revised: Mission Statement

From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jun 2003 12:37:10 -0400
To: <jdart@tibco.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <009101c32ab7$9d9e87e0$1a6e100a@JJD>


I also like 1.b. However, I don't see means but one goal, i.e. "to
specify the means", I don't think that any means is explicit?

I was wondering if we could insert a "peer-to-peer" connotation as I
think this is fundamental to this group and the truly innovative portion
of ws-chor. Of course "interoperate" sounds a bit like peer-to-peer, but
I think it is not strong enough since it should be more than

<mission statement group = "ws-chor" type="CSF level 0" version = "1.1b"
revision="jjd"> The mission of the Web Services Choreography Working
Group at W3C is to specify <inserted>on the foundation of
WSDL</inserted> the means by which <inserted>peer </inserted>Web
Services <replaced text="interoperate">interact</replaced>, <replaced
text="how composition of Web Services is performed">can be
composed</replaced>, and how the sequencing of <replaced
text="events">messages</replaced> among services may be regulated to
ensure <inserted>conformance to </inserted>interoperability. </mission

Which in clear gives:
The mission of the Web Services Choreography Working Group at W3C is to
specify on the foundation of WSDL the means by which peer Web Services
interact, can be composed, and how the sequencing of messages among
services may be regulated to ensure conformance to interoperability.

Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________
Chief Architect
Eigner  Precision Lifecycle Management
200 Fifth Avenue
Waltham, MA 02451

>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
>>On Behalf Of Jon Dart
>>Sent: Mittwoch, 4. Juni 2003 11:59
>>To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Revised: Mission Statement
>>Nickolas Kavantzas wrote:
>>> I also agree with Assaf that the 2 definitions of our mission
>>are not bad, just a bit too generic.
>>I think 1.1b is ok. A mission statement is supposed to be generic. IMO
>>it should specify goals, not means.
>>Re 1.1a: I'm actually ok with the idea (I've generally been in the
>>pro-WSDL camp) but IMO it's specifying the means to reach the goal,
>>so much the goal itself.
>>Perhaps we could pick 1.1b and follow it up with the statement that
>>is expected that this group's mission will be achieved by specifying
>>or more XML-based languages [or insert better word - descriptive
>>systems?] building on the foundation of WSDL 1.2".
Received on Wednesday, 4 June 2003 12:38:13 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:59 UTC