- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
- Date: Wed, 14 May 2003 13:18:12 -0400
- To: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>
- Cc: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Daniel: I get a sense from the discussion we had yesterday that we would need to collect requirements along with priorities (I typically use: must have, strong desire, nice to have, future release, out of scope). That would allow us to say things like: This is just an example... Requirement 123: Need to provide a binding to WSDL 1.x -> MH Requirement 124: Need to provide an extensible binding mechanism such that choreographies could be bound to other technologies -> SD Requirement 125: Need to provide a level of abstraction for the document formats -> MH ... Jean-Jacques >>-----Original Message----- >>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] >>On Behalf Of Daniel_Austin@grainger.com >>Sent: Dienstag, 13. Mai 2003 14:29 >>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 >>Subject: Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement >> >> >> >>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 Wednesday, 14 May 2003 13:25:07 UTC