RE: State Alignment and Standard Signals

Bob:

Sorry, I missed Tony's email. I concur wholeheartedly to the content of
the email.

My proposal to the WS-CDL was twofold:
a) if you talk about state and state alignment, you would need a state
alignment protocol of some sort
b) WS-CDL may offer an abstract protocol capability, i.e. 
	- provide a way to express existing protocols via an MEP
specification 
	- provide a way to use the "states" of the protocol to influence
the choreography.

That approach should allow us to describe all other protocols with
WS-CDL and WS-CDL to say, you can pick and choose the state alignment
protocol you want.

Is this proposal compatible with your suggestion?

Jean-Jacques

-----Original Message-----
From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
[mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Haugen Robert
Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 11:26 AM
To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: Re: State Alignment and Standard Signals


Monica Martin wrote:
> I am not certain that the message exchange achieves 
> 'real state alignment'

I agree.  

Do people disagree with Tony and my message that six other
specifications are already competing to try to define this area?  (Maybe
it was too long?)
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2004Jul/0017.html

Seven if you count ebXML BPSS/OASIS ebpp/RosettaNet/UNCEFACT BCF as one?
Or nine or ten if you consider that all of those specs, derived from
RosettaNet, have forked subtly since their derivation?

Do you really want to work on yet another business state alignment
protocol?

Received on Thursday, 15 July 2004 15:04:58 UTC