Monica I understand your concerns about scope creep. However I suggest that if we review scope changes carefully then we should be OK. Specifically I think we should only extend scope if all the following are true: 1. The extended scope must be capable of being very clearly defined 2. The benefit of extending the scope must be significant 3. The work required to handle the extended scope must be reasonable. I think that the "level 0" type of abstract definition meets all of these. David -----Original Message----- From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:27 AM To: Ugo Corda Cc: Burdett, David; Jean-Jacques Dubray; Steve Ross-Talbot; public-ws-chor@w3.org Subject: 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. > mm1: First is a semantic definition within the scope of WS-Choreography, particularly those described by David in Level 0? These seem to fall into the business category. If we continue to expand the scope where does our boundary stop?
Received on Friday, 28 November 2003 20:34:11 UTC