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

RE: Revised: Mission Statement

From: Yaron Y. Goland <ygoland@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jun 2003 09:54:21 -0700
To: "Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jjd@eigner.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <GMEOJGJFKALPDCNPFMDOKEMFDDAA.ygoland@bea.com>

I'm not sure how to respond to your objection to the mission statement
containing a reference to WSDL 1.2 when our charter calls for us to have
exactly that dependency. If you object to the charter then please move to
have it amended but until then it is appropriate for the mission statement
to include dependencies called for by our charter.

I have changed "describe" and "agrees to accept" as per your comments. I
have also added a motivation to the mission per a private communication with
Steven Ross-Talbot.

I believe, btw, that the reason we need a new mission statement is that the
currently proposed one is so vague that it would make it impossible to
differentiate between us and BPEL. Given that every article I read in the
press (the same press our customers read) says that BPEL will win and
WS-Chor is irrelevant I would suggest it is in our interests to make it as
clear as possible how we are different than BPEL and why we do not compete
with them.

Here is the edited version of the mission statement:

The mission of the W3C Web Service Choreography Working Group is to create a
WSDL 1.2 based machine readable XML language that can declarative model the
set of message sequences a group of cooperating web service peers exchange
for the purpose of promoting interoperability and enabling automated
validation of each peer's conformance to the message sequence definition.

	Thanks,
			Yaron


> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Jean-Jacques Dubray
> Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 7:42 AM
> To: 'Yaron Y. Goland'; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Revised: Mission Statement
>
>
>
> We should not tie it to a particular WSDL version (what happens in the
> future or if WSDL produces a new version before ws-chor work is
> finished?) "WSDL based" is a bit too strong for me, but I can live with
> it.
>
> I don't like the work "describe", do you mean "model"? It also does not
> clearly talk to a purpose of describing or modeling.
>
> "agrees to accept" does not sounds correct to me. What about "exchange"
> or "interchange"?
>
> At this point I still like Daniel's mission statement and the slight
> changes I added with suggestions from others.
>
> Jean-Jacques
>
>
> >>-----Original Message-----
> >>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]
> >>On Behalf Of Yaron Y. Goland
> >>Sent: Dienstag, 10. Juni 2003 19:32
> >>To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> >>Subject: RE: Revised: Mission Statement
> >>
> >>
> >>I would propose the following simplification:
> >>
> >>The mission of the W3C Web Service Choreography Working Group is to
> create
> >>a
> >>WSDL 1.2 based machine readable XML language that can describe the
> >>complete
> >>set of message sequences a group of cooperating web service peers
> agrees
> >>to
> >>accept.
> >>
> >>	Yaron
> >>
> >>> -----Original Message-----
> >>> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> >>> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Monica J. Martin
> >>> Sent: Wednesday, June 04, 2003 10:06 AM
> >>> To: Jean-Jacques Dubray
> >>> Cc: jdart@tibco.com; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> >>> Subject: Re: Revised: Mission Statement
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> >
> >>> >
> >>> ><<Dubray: 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.>>
> >>> >
> >>> mm1: +1 except replace 'conformance to interoperability' with
> >>> 'conformance and interoperability'.  This differentiates conformance
> (to
> >>> a specification) for a technology vs. interoperabilility between
> >>> technology solutions or implementations.
> >>>
> >>> Monica
> >>>
> >>>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 17 June 2003 12:54:55 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:21 GMT