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

Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement

From: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>
Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:28:39 -0500
To: arkin@intalio.com
Cc: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, david.burdett@commerceone.com, jjd@eigner.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org, public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
Message-ID: <OF9BA3297A.0DFF39F9-ON86256D25.00655FA4@grainger.com>


Hi Assaf,

      i disagree with your statement below, simply because our charter
specifically says that we will *not* create bindings to any specific
language. Thus it is out of scope for us to develop bindings for WSDL, etc.

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


                                                                                                                                  
                      "Assaf Arkin"                                                                                               
                      <arkin@intalio.com        To:       "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>                        
                      >                         cc:       "'Jean-Jacques Dubray'" <jjd@eigner.com>, Daniel_Austin@grainger.com,   
                      Sent by:                   public-ws-chor@w3.org                                                            
                      public-ws-chor-req        Subject:  Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement                        
                      uest@w3.org                                                                                                 
                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                  
                      05/12/2003 06:06                                                                                            
                      PM                                                                                                          
                                                                                                                                  
                                                                                                                                  





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.
Received on Tuesday, 13 May 2003 14:28:47 GMT

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