W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > February 2007

Re: BPSS and ISO T68/WG4

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2007 10:16:02 -0800
To: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
Cc: WS-Choreography List <public-ws-chor@w3.org>, Matthew Rawlings <matthew@stickledown.com>, Pim van der Eijk <pim.vandereijk@oasis-open.org>, Dale Moberg <dmoberg@us.axway.com>
Message-id: <45D0AEE2.3050407@sun.com>


> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: Monica,
> I got the minutes from our last ISO WG4 meeting. Included is the 
> following:
>
> Q: How does the choreography compare with that in WS-CDL?
> A: The choreographies are not very different, but if you port BPSS 
> into CDL a lot of material is not carried over. However the BPSS 
> choreography was developed empirically from actual projects and is not 
> based on Pi Calculus or any other academic body of thought. 

mm1: Steve, this is a small snippet of one comment of one part of the 
discussion, so let's keep this in context.  ebBP comes from business 
roots and stakeholders in the business modeling domain; those roots were 
the scope of this surrounding conversation. Dale may also wish to 
comment further.

> What specifically is lost when xlating from BPSS to WS-CDL? 

mm1: Two examples are the business transaction patterns and business 
transactions in addition to the semantic information attached to the 
logical business documents and business transactions.

> What would be lost in xlating from WS-CDL to BPSS?

mm1: This was not discussed. Briefly though, as an initial example, CDL 
is primarily focused on use of WSDL and web services. That is an 
option(al) only in ebBP. Explicit channels could be affected as the 
concrete aspects of the delivery channel are part of a CPP/CPA rather 
than ebBP by framework design (i.e. separation of the delivery channel 
from the business process contract). They are used together as desired.

> WS-CDL may be based on pi-calculus but this does not mean that does 
> not have a grounding in business requirements.

mm1: This comment is yours rather than ours.

> As you well know the Choreography WG embarked on a specific 
> requirements gathering phase before turning it's attention to the 
> language that we know as WS-CDL. Furthermore as part of the review of 
> the WG (including your good self) we checked the requirements against 
> WS-CDL and found that we had met them all. Those requirements can be 
> found at:
>
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ws-chor-reqs-20040311/

mm1: See previous comment.

> Basing a language on a formalism (pi-calculus or another) has a 
> benefit that you may have missed. It is that we can examine just what 
> we can express in a rigorous way. Not having a formalism is similar to 
> building bridges and airplanes on the basis of empirical observation. 
> I do not think that this would be allowed because of the importance 
> bridges and airplanes have in today's society. We would not want them 
> to break or fall out of the sky. So think formalisms are a very good 
> thing and have underpinned good engineering from the very start of 
> engineering. I think that you may have forgotten to make this point to 
> WG4.

mm1: For ebBP, formalisms were rooted in the business modeling domain 
(see first comment). The benefit was discussed Steve.

> The Choreography WG looks forward to working with the BPSS TC, as it 
> has always done.

mm1: We have an opportunity to do so, yes. Thanks.
Received on Monday, 12 February 2007 18:16:15 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Saturday, 18 December 2010 01:01:49 GMT