W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > December 2005

Re: WS-CDL or abstract BPEL

From: Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Thu, 01 Dec 2005 08:05:52 -0800
To: Tonny Holdorf <tonny.holdorf@gmail.com>
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Message-id: <438F1F60.1010302@sun.com>


> holdorf: Reading the paper made me wonder: Why is a global description 
> of the  service collaboration as in WS-CDL better than a set of local  
> descriptions that each describes the behavior of the participating  
> services (e.g. as a set of abstract BPEL descriptions)? Would a set  
> of abstract BPEL descriptions for each of the collaborating services  
> and a global WS-CDL description for the collaboration as a whole not  
> just be different representations of the same thing? If not, what  
> expressive power is added by the global WS-CDL description compared  
> to a set of abstract BPEL descriptions for each end point.
>
> Also, many complicated network protocols, e.g. TCP, have been  
> specified just fine by descriptions of endpoint behavior such as  
> state machines. Why is a global specification needed?

mm1: One important point - when you have multiple set of abstract BPEL 
descriptions there is no described or defined compatibility between the 
respective BPEL descriptions. There are other more pervasive 
differences, such as the underlying formalism in WS-CDL vs. WS-BPEL. 
Some would question the rigor of the latter while supporting the 
stability of the former (as evidenced by Honda et al work on a 
conformance typing system).  Defer to the experts however. Thanks.
Received on Thursday, 1 December 2005 16:06:26 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:42 GMT