Re: choreography & orchestration must be defined in a context

Ugo Corda wrote:

>Monica,
>So are you are saying that level 0 should be out of scope? I bet David might be able to derive the opposite conclusion ;-). 
>
>I suspect we should be much more explicit than that.
>
>Ugo
>  
>
Explicitly, I do not believe that level 0 is of interest to this working 
group.

This doesn't mean I don't see any validity in level 0, on the contrary, 
I just don't see the need to standardize it within the W3C.

All the use cases I have to deal with are about services knowing how to 
communicate with each other, whether for looking up matching services, 
framing the implementation, validating the execution, etc. A useful 
definition language that meets those requirements needs to be concrete 
about the interfaces being used, which means level 1.

One way to generate level 1 definitions is to have an abstract level 0 
definition and then tailor it to interface definitions and exchange it. 
That's an approach that many vendors could take, and I see value in 
that. But I see the level 1 definitions as being exchanged, at the 
moment I do not have a single use case for exchanging level 0 
definitions that is not met by UML.

Hence, I don't see any value for the W3C putting an effort into 
standardizing a language for level 0 definitions.

arkin