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

Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 09:57:51 +0100
Cc: "'Assaf Arkin'" <arkin@intalio.com>, "'Burdett, David'" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
To: "Jean-Jacques Dubray" <jjd@eigner.com>
Message-Id: <FA6998EF-8520-11D7-AC3D-000393AD2AA6@enigmatec.net>

I have made this WSDL non-WSDL a topic for discussion at the call later  
today.
I'd like to get a summary of the views expressed so far ... any  
volunteers?

Cheers

Steve T

On Tuesday, May 13, 2003, at 01:46  am, Jean-Jacques Dubray wrote:

>
> I don't understand your argument, why won't you get everything for free
> as long as you have a binding to WSDL whether it is direct or let's say
> indirect for the lack of a better word. The advantage of the later is
> that in addition of getting everything the ws-arch has to offer, you  
> can
> also re-use the formalism of ws-chor for other technologies.
>
> Having a "binding" framework that relates ws-chor to WSDL garanties  
> that
> the design of ws-chor is now decoupled from the evolution of WSDL, we
> would only change the binding not the core choreography language.
>
> We can clearly see the limitations of a tight coupling between BPML or
> BPEL and web services, now that WSDL is shifting from operations to
> MEPs, one has to adjust the corresponding specs.
>
> Jean-Jacques Dubray____________________
> Chief Architect
> Eigner  Precision Lifecycle Management
> 200 Fifth Avenue
> Waltham, MA 02451
> 781-472-6317
> jjd@eigner.com
> www.eigner.com
>
>
>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
>>> Sent: Montag, 12. Mai 2003 19:07
>>> To: Burdett, David
>>> Cc: 'Jean-Jacques Dubray'; Daniel_Austin@grainger.com; public-ws-
>>> chor@w3.org
>>> Subject: Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement
>>>
>>> My take on this:
>>>
>>> In reviewing other specifications in this space including security
> (the
>>> WS-Security stack, SAML, etc), coordination (WS-TX and BTP), reliable
>>> messaging (WS-RM(1) and WS-RM(2)) and even not yet discussed
>>> specifications such as WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, management specs,
> etc,
>>> they all seem to be recommend that we write choreographies using WSDL
>>> operations.
>>>
>>> These specification will either add additional dimensions by
> referencing
>>> the same WSDL operation we reference, or by being part of the  
>>> protocol
>>> binding used by that WSDL operation (in effect also referencing them)
>>> when it comes time to actually exchange messages.
>>>
>>> So clearly the way to go is to write a choroegraphy definition by
>>> referencing WSDL operations. Then you get everything else that works
>>> with WSDL for free, including stuff that's available now and specs we
>>> anticipate will be standardized in the near future.
>>>
>>> Of course this only works with that list of specifications and  
>>> relates
>>> specifications that are part of the WS stack. The question then
> becomes,
>>> are there other specifications we want to support that work in
> different
>>> ways indicating that we need to keep our options open?
>>>
>>> arkin
>>>
>>>
>>> Burdett, David wrote:
>>>
>>>> I find myself agreeing with JJ again when he says ...
>>>>
>>>> [JJ] yes, one of the value of the spec could be to offer a binding  
>>>> to
>>>> WSDL but remain open to other bindings.
>>>>
>>>> I think this is an important principle if only because, as bindings
>>> evolve,
>>>> which they surely will to support security, reliability etc, then
> only
>>> our
>>>> binding will need to change, the main spec, hopefull, should not  
>>>> need
> to
>>>> change.
>>>>
>>>> My $0.02c
>>>>
>>>> David
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jjd@eigner.com]
>>>> Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 1:09 PM
>>>> To: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com; jjd@eigner.com
>>>> Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
>>>> Subject: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>     I don't necessarily buy the argument that we are only talking
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> about
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> the interactions between one WSDL-ized object and another. WSDL is
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>> just
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> one
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> "Those who can, do; those who can't, make screenshots"
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------- 
>>> -
>>> Assaf Arkin                                           
>>> arkin@intalio.com
>>> Intalio Inc.                                            
>>> www.intalio.com
>>> The Business Process Management Company                 (650) 577  
>>> 4700
>>>
>>>
>>> This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and
>>> may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL.
>>> If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this
>>> communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication
>>> in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments
>>> and notify us immediately.
>
>
> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If  
> you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose  
> its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately.  
> Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not  
> liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their  
> own antivirus software.
>

This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 04:58:36 GMT

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