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

RE: additional para from 31 oct telecon

From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 10:05:49 -0600
Message-ID: <7FCB5A9F010AAE419A79A54B44F3718E01817BDC@bocnte2k3.boc.chevrontexaco.net>
To: "'Jeff Mischkinsky'" <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org

Looks pretty good to me.  However, I honestly do not understand the last
sentence at all.  I'm not disagreeing with it, I'm just not getting it.  Is
there some way that you can recast or expand it to make it more clear?

Maybe I should try to be more explicit about my confusion, if that is
possible.  In this sentence I don't understand what "standards context"
means.  Using or makinfg standards?  Does "specification of choreographies"
mean specifying techniques of expressing choreographies or specific
instances of choreographies (like "A sends an invoice to B")?  In either
case, what does it mean to be interoperable and what is the value?  Is this
interoperable between Oracle and IBM or between W3C and OASIS?  I think,
from the discussion on the phone, that it may be the latter.  If so, I
really think that this needs to be explained more clearly and the actual
area of value added explicitly pointed out.

So far, "reduce the cost of integrating with new trading partners and
responding to changes in existing interfaces [that effect the logic of the
message exchanges]" is the core of the business value I am seeing displayed.
Are there any other payouts?  It really seems to me that there might be, but
I'm not coming up with anything real specific.

As it stands, it seems to me that this business value may be achieved by a
rather small subset of the complex specs in play.  That is, what I would
call (probably not very accurately) the message sequencing part.

-----Original Message-----
From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] 
Sent: Friday, November 01, 2002 3:59 AM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: additional para from 31 oct telecon

    Here's my attempt to capture today's discussion centering around adding 
a description of the business drivers for developing a choreography spec.

This goes right before Section 1.1 - Inputs


  WSDL has proved very useful for describing a single service. Currently 
complex natural language describing the obligations of the participants 
detailing how to use a service (sequencing, state management, etc.) have to 
accompany a WSDL description. The next step is to partially replace these 
somewhat imprecise instructions with precise language. This will simplify 
the daunting task companies now face when trying to use web services to 
integrate their business processes. In a B2B context such a specification 
could reduce the cost of integrating with new trading partners and 
responding to changes in existing interfaces. In a standards context it 
will allow the development of specifications of choreographies  in 
sufficient detail to enable interoperable implementations. 
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 11:06:23 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:41:00 UTC