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

RE: [Requirements] Non-requirement for MEPs

From: Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Date: Tue, 18 Mar 2003 13:36:03 -0800
To: <jdart@tibco.com>, "'Mayilraj Krishnan'" <mkrishna@cisco.com>
Cc: "'Jean-Jacques Moreau'" <jean-jacques.moreau@crf.canon.fr>, "'Patil Sanjaykumar'" <sanjay.patil@iona.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Message-ID: <002d01c2ed96$612c0f70$a402010a@us.oracle.com>

Indeed there does seem to be a suggestion that we should not to be tied
to WSDL.
Aside from the fact that there already exists non-wsdl based
choreography languages 
in various standard arenas, I would like to remind the group that the
working group 
sits within the Web Services Activity and we have to be closely aligned
to SOAP, WSDL 
and the WS Architecture. Explicit in the charter is the following
statement:
 
   "The Working Group must describe services accessible via WSDL 1.2
defined by the Web Services Description Group."

What is not excluded is whether, IN ADDITION, we should address services
defined by some other means.

Cheers,
  Martin.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Jon Dart
> Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 1:04 PM
> To: Mayilraj Krishnan
> Cc: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Patil Sanjaykumar; public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: [Requirements] Non-requirement for MEPs
> 
> 
> 
> Mayilraj Krishnan wrote:
> > 
> > I don' t think anybody suggesting not to use WSDL. There were
> > suggestions to define the business message exchanges
> > or business signals which could be mapped to basic MEPs..
> 
> Actually I think some participants were considering whether something 
> like ebXML interactions could be modelled in WS-Choreography 
> - they have 
> their own metadata, it isn't WSDL. RosettaNet is another 
> example. Maybe 
> it's out of scope, but if you emphasize the "choreography" 
> part of the 
> definition and take a liberal view of what "web serivces" could mean, 
> then this might make sense.
> 
> --Jon
> 
> 
> 
Received on Tuesday, 18 March 2003 16:59:44 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:06 GMT