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

Re: choreography & orchestration must be defined in a context

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:13:50 -0800
Message-ID: <3FC4DF4E.4090306@intalio.com>
To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Jean-Jacques Dubray <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>, Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

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
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2003 12:17:47 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:00:41 GMT