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

RE: Dubray paper comments + questions

From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:25:51 -0500
To: <jdart@tibco.com>, "'Howard N Smith'" <howard.smith@ontology.org>
Cc: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <006901c2e1aa$031da6c0$0502a8c0@JJD>

Jon, Howard:

I also agree to the extent that ws-chor should not produce something
that is complex to use for simple cases. The key in adopting new
technologies is the "cost of entry" versus the benefits. I can speak
from a specific experience that it is not that trivial to weight the
benefits of BPM/ws-chor concepts with respect to the rigidity of a
choreography definition for instance. I personally thought that it was
clear, but obviously either I was wrong or it was harder for some other
people to see these benefits or it required too complex of an
infrastructure to deal with.

It is important to distinguish a design benefit (which do not require a
specific run-time implementation, i.e. could still hard code what is
going on), from the benefit of a run-time enforcement/execution of the


>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
>>On Behalf Of Jon Dart
>>Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:56 AM
>>To: Howard N Smith
>>Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
>>Subject: Re: Dubray paper comments + questions
>>Howard N Smith wrote:
>>> These are requirements because they occur in real business
>>> and real business processes are what technologists should
>>> be focussed on supporting, not our ideas about how companies should
>>> should not do B2B.
>>I don't believe I was stating an opinion about how B2B should be done;
>>was talking about the state of current practice.
>>I dont think B2B is the scope. I think
>>> BPM is the scope, and in BPM, a lot more happens than in narrower
>>> definitions of B2B.
>>I agree.
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 12:25:08 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:00:56 UTC