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

Fwd: Exit criteria - whatdoyouthink

From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:42:16 +0100
Message-Id: <454a38611bf5c9418aca499df5623012@pi4tech.com>
To: 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>



Begin forwarded message:

> From: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com>
> Date: 10 May 2005 16:58:00 BST
> To: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com>
> Subject: Re: Exit criteria - whatdoyouthink
>
> Comments inline:
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" 
> <steve@pi4tech.com>
> To: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:50 PM
> Subject: Exit criteria - whatdoyouthink
>
>
>> The exit criteria for the Web Services Choreography working group 
>> shall be as follows:
>>
>> 1. There MUST be a specification of WS-CDL
>>
>> 2. There MUST be a Primer elaborating how WS-CDL is to be used 
>> through means of at least one example.
>>
>> 3. There MUST be an example that exhibits all of the features of 
>> WS-CDL such that the example is:
>
> GB: The term "all of the features" may be difficult - because it means 
> that all implementations have to support alignment and coordination? 
> Would be better if these could be listed as features relying on 
> additional technology (and bindings) and therefore WS-CDL exit 
> criteria cannot be dependent upon them.
>
>>
>> a. Encoded by at least two separate parties and shown to be valid 
>> WS-CDL
>> b. End points are created by at least two separate parties from the 
>> WS-CDL description
>>     such that the examples run in at least two different platforms.
>> c. The end points created can be shown to interoperate correctly 
>> according to the WS-CDL description
>>
>>
>> Note:
>>
>> This allows us to have hand crafted WS-CDL descriptions from one or 
>> more parties and a single validating editor to import the WS-CDL 
>> definitions.
>>
>> This allows us to hand craft end points from a WS-CDL description or 
>> generate them using some tool to any two platforms (i.e. Java and 
>> WS-BPEL).
>>
>> This allows us to use a monitoring tool that validates the messages 
>> to/from and end point against the WS-CDL description.
>
> GB: I don't think that (c) implies monitoring - so we could leave 
> monitoring out. We could do it if relevant, but (c) could simply be 
> achieved by observing that a business transaction encoded in CDL has 
> completed successfully?
>
>>
>> This does not require more than one company to provide an editor, 
>> auto-generation or monitoring software. But it does require more than 
>> one company to participate in the construction of (a) and (b) above.
>>
>
> GB: Good
>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2005 17:42:29 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:33 GMT