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

RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement

From: Patil, Sanjaykumar <sanjay.patil@iona.com>
Date: Fri, 9 May 2003 16:06:36 -0700
Message-ID: <EA3ECEFACBE7674789ADE4D9E3ABB6B0104BCE@AMERWEST-EMS1.IONAGLOBAL.COM>
To: "Nickolas Kavantzas" <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>, "Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jjd@eigner.com>
Cc: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>


This is good. 

Some nitpicking:
- Can we say "global view" instead of "common view". There is a difference, isn't it.
- Aren't role and responsibility the same? Can we instead say  "roles and their interactions are clearly defined ..."
- The auomatable, machine-readable attributes are important.  But we need to identify what exactly needs to be machine readable (the definition of global view?) and what needs to be automatable (the process of deriving each participants obligations from the global view?)

However this definition gives me a feeling that we are getting there. 

Sanjay Patil
Distinguished Engineer
sanjay.patil@iona.com
-------------------------------------------------------
IONA Technologies
2350 Mission College Blvd. Suite 650
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: (408) 350 9619
Fax: (408) 350 9501
-------------------------------------------------------
Making Software Work Together TM


-----Original Message-----
From: Nickolas Kavantzas [mailto:nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com]
Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 2:53 PM
To: Jean-Jacques Dubray
Cc: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com; public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement



I think that the concept of Common View is the central concept for our work.

Here is a mission statement encapsulating this concept:


Our Goal is to define a Common View of Long Lived business process
Interactions, where roles and responsibilities are clearly defined in a way
that is automatable for each participant, machine-readable, and
in a manner whereby each participant's involvement can be validated.


--
Nick


Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:

> Daniel:
>
> We should be careful in using or not using the word "external". To be
> this is an arbitrary distinction and the spec could remain neutral with
> respect to that attribute.
>
> There seem to be an important concept missing: "Long Running
> Interactions"
>
> There also seem to miss some goals such as: being able to enforce
> message sequences and detect exceptions, ...
>
> My two centimes (of Euro that is).
>
> JJ-
>
> >>
> >><mission statement group = "ws-chor" type="CSF level 0">
> >>The mission of the Web Services Choreography Working Group at W3C is
> to
> >>specify the means by    which Web Services may collaborate with
> external
> >>systems, specifically in the composition of multiple services and the
> >>sequencing of messages among them.
> >></mission statement>
> >>
> >>Regards,
> >>
> >>D-
> >>
> >>*************************************************
> >>Dr. Daniel Austin
> >>Sr. Technical Architect / Architecture Team Lead
> >>daniel_austin@notes.grainger.com <----- Note change!
> >>847 793 5044
> >>Visit http://www.grainger.com
> >>
> >>"If I get a little money, I buy books. If there is anything left over,
> I
> >>buy clothing and food."
> >>-Erasmus
> >>
Received on Friday, 9 May 2003 19:07:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:17 GMT