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

RE: choreography & orchestration must be defined in a context

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 17:33:45 -0800
Message-ID: <99F57F955F3EEF4DABA7C88CFA7EB45A0C0C8AB9@c1plenaexm04-b.commerceone.com>
To: "'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Jean-Jacques Dubray <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>, Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

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.


-----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;
Subject: Re: choreography & orchestration must be defined in a context

Ugo Corda wrote:

>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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:02 UTC