Re: A trial balloon distinction between choreography & orchestration

>Corda: Steve,
>
>I think your orchestration definition below is too vague and could refer to meanings that are not related to orchestration at all (for example, "the way a single Web service should be used is by sending messages as specified in the corresponding WSDL file, at the address specified in the same file"). 
>
>A more appropriate definition would be, in my mind, something like:
>
>A written business protocol (i.e. abstract WS-BPEL) description documents how a set of Web Services should be "used", as expressed from the point of view of one of the participating Web services......
>
mm1: I would be inclined to agree with Ugo. On Steve's point (and thanks 
Steve for the impetus), I would add that the choreography definition 
describes how a set of web services conforms to the definition when the 
services are used.

>Ross-Talbot: As an aside from all of the stuff going on in requirements I would be interested on peoples take on what Frank postulated as a distinction between the O word and the C word. As a guiding principle in how we may view a CDL is this helpful?
>
>Suppose we changed it slightly to read:
>
>	A written choreography description documents how a set of Web Services should be "used".
>
>This minor change could then incorporate design-time use as well as run-time use (for conformance and compliance to a choreography).
>  
>
>>>McCabe:
>>>I am aware that the O word is taboo. However, the following occurred to me during the last F2F: A written choreography description documents how to *use* a set of Web services: A written orchestration description documents how to *control* a set of Web services.
>>>      
>>>