W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > January 2004

Re: WS Choreography Deliverables

From: Paul Denning <pauld@mitre.org>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 14:01:24 -0500
Message-Id: <>
To: "WS Choreography (E-mail)" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

Thanks for the reply.
More below...


At 12:28 PM 2004-01-30, Steve Ross-Talbot wrote:

>you have the gist completely. Of course BPEL is only one skeletal target.


>Java is another and maybe there would be others that get a look in.

Is there a JSR for this yet?

>Whilst I know many that would like to use a BPEL-like solution for 
>execution I know just as many that would not because

>they need higher distribution in the execution.

I'm not sure what you mean be a need for higher distribution in the 
execution.  Sounds like you are hinting at a limitation in BPEL; would this 
limitation be in the language, or in implementing a BPEL processing engine?

>Given that users are not uniform we as a group (WS-CHOR) are looking at 
>BPEL as one (an important one albeit) target.


>Steve T
>On 30 Jan 2004, at 15:20, Paul Denning wrote:
>>At 02:18 AM 2004-01-29, Burdett, David wrote:
>>>It also identifies one possible additional document that would describe 
>>>how to generate process language definitions (e.g. BPEL) for a role from 
>>>a Choreography Definition.
>>Would the primer talk about where BPEL fits in relation to WS-CDL.
>>Maybe this gets into methodology, but it sounds like business partners 
>>would get together and capture their discussion in WS-CDL.  Then each 
>>partner goes back and generates BPEL (skeleton) for their side of the 
>>interactions.   Then adds more meat to the BPEL such that they can feed 
>>it into a BPEL workflow engine.
>>Is that the gist of it?
Received on Friday, 30 January 2004 14:02:02 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:01:03 UTC