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

Requirements

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>
Message-ID: <003201c31a3c$dede81f0$036e050a@JJD>

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 GMT

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