W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-ws-arch@w3.org > April 2002

RE: Orchestration (was: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requireme nts)

From: Sadiq, Waqar <waqar.sadiq@eds.com>
Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:48:32 -0600
Message-ID: <9C79F2D39765D411B18900508BE326A20B728F48@USPLM208>
To: "Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>, "Sadiq, Waqar" <waqar.sadiq@eds.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
Cc: Web Services Private <w3c-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Igor,

Isn't one of the objectives of architecture group to justify the need for
new work groups to be created, such as one for orchestration.  I don't think
that we should be considering it just because there is no other WG to
consider it.  If we say that orchestration and web service description, as
in WSDL, belong to the same layer in the architecture stack than we have a
reason to consider it.  But I don't think you said that?  I would not want
to short change the architecture group of what it is supposed to do. 

 
_______________________________________________
Waqar Sadiq
 
EDS EIT ESAI - Enterprise Consultant
MS: H3-4C-22
5400 Legacy Drive
Plano, Texas 75024
 
phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837)
e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com
fax: +01-972-605-4071
_______________________________________________
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:25 AM
To: Sadiq, Waqar; Jean-Jacques Moreau; Jeffrey Schlimmer
Cc: Web Services Private; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Orchestration (was: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requireme
nts)

I also strongly suggest architecture group to start paying more attention to
the immediate needs of WS infrastructure starting with orchestration. As of
last conf.call, we seem to be winding a lot arround abstract vision
differences.

But, let me disagree with Waqar, I think that WSCL and all other similar
flow *description* languages whould fall under joint consideration of
architecture group (to fit it conceptually) and description group (to
finalize details of the spec). There are only three groups in W3 that have
to do with Web Services directly. According to the charter, anything
conceptual goes to WSAWG, anything descriptive goes to WSDWG and anything
"on the wire" goes to XMLP. Until a specific "orchestration" group is
established...

-- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
-- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788



-----Original Message-----
From: Sadiq, Waqar [mailto:waqar.sadiq@eds.com] 
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 10:05 AM
To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Jeffrey Schlimmer
Cc: Web Services Private; Sedukhin, Igor; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Orchestration (was: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requireme
nts)




I am cross-posting this to the architecture group also.  I personally
believe that a description language and orchestration language belong to
different stacks in the web services reference model (none exists yet).  

I believe that orchestration layer adds a level of business intelligence
that leverages the web services layer (described by WSDL) but the two are
not the same.

I vote to defer WSCL to the architecture group for consideration and not
change the scope of what we are doing with WSDL.

Thanks,

 
_______________________________________________
Waqar Sadiq
 
EDS EIT ESAI - Enterprise Consultant
MS: H3-4C-22
5400 Legacy Drive
Plano, Texas 75024
 
phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837)
e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com
fax: +01-972-605-4071 _______________________________________________
 
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] 
Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 2:18 AM
To: Jeffrey Schlimmer
Cc: Web Services Private; Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com
Subject: Orchestration (was: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements)

[Switching to w3c-ws-desc, since this may touch on member confidential
issues.]

Orchestration brings the question: what are we supposed to do with WSCL [1]?
This does not seem to be considered out-of-scope [2], and the team's comment
was that it should be brought to our attention [3]. Does this indicate a
possible refinent for operations?

Jean-Jacques.

[1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wscl10/
[2] http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-desc-charter
[3] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2002/02/Comment

Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote:

> R097: I'd suggest change it to "Must". (Now, this is NOT covered by
> R036!)
> [jeffsch: I agree that this is part of a general Web Service 
> definition, but I don't agree that this is appropriate to describe in 
> WSDL; it seems to border on orchestration.]
>
> -- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 10:48:43 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:24:57 GMT