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

Re: "Orchestration" and "Choreography"

From: Doug Bunting <db134722@iplanet.com>
Date: Fri, 16 Aug 2002 08:42:20 -0700
To: "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Cc: "'bhaugen'" <linkage@interaccess.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Message-id: <3D5D1D5C.B7247021@iplanet.com>


Well put.  However, we need some definitions to get us along to the next topic
for discussion.  We can define orchestration and choreography as equivalent, go
with words derived from Martin's music and dance analogy or come up with
something entirely new.  In all cases, everyone will need to map their
preconceived notions to our terms because many have slightly different views.

I'd lean towards using Martin's analogy because it's relatively close to most of
our a priori (wrt WSAWG) knowledge.


"Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" wrote:

> Yes, I was thinking of posting on that subject.  That was why I was so
> surprised to hear that "orchestration" in IT involves a "conductor".  In
> musical circles orchestration refers more to a composition activity than
> anything about performance.  Once orchestrated, in fact a musical work can
> be performed without a conductor, and in fact for small ensembles that's the
> norm.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 6:41 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: "Orchestration" and "Choreography"
> Orchestration
> \Or`ches*tra"tion\, n. (Mus.) The arrangement of music for an orchestra;
> orchestral treatment of a composition; -- called also instrumentation.
> Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (c) 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.
> Doesn't say anything about conducting.
> In Duke Ellington's band, Duke often composed the melodies,
> and Billy Strayhorn often did the orchestration:  assigned parts to
> instruments, wrote the sheets for each player, etc. Duke led (but rarely
> conducted) the band.
> Christopher Ferris wrote (but disagreed with):
> > In general, I think that most people have been using the terms
> > somewhat interchangably, e.g. without really thinking about or
> > inferring any hidden meaning.
> I think that is the state of affairs.
> W3C can of course make words mean whatever you want,
> but will the world go along?
> -Bob Haugen
Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 11:43:21 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:40:58 UTC