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

RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:15:48 -0800
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1442@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
Cc: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org


As I have described in my reply to Roger's email. Standardized choreography
languages are not **required**, but they can definitely introduce huge
savings in implementation costs.

I also maintain, that unless the cost of implementation is kept down, there
will be many instances when web service technology could have been used but
won't be.

The lack of proper standardization of EDI is the main reason why it has not
been adopted by SMEs (Small to Medium Enterprises). We must not make the
same mistake again.


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:21 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
Cc: 'David Orchard'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: Re: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases

On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:19:40PM -0600, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote:
> I think to some extent we are talking at cross purposes here.  If the
> generic example you mention is the one I think it is, it certainly
> illustrates the primary message patterns but is utterly silent about the
> business value of standardization.


I'm really eager to know what kind of scenario requires a
standardized choreography language.  My position remains that there is
no scenario that requires it, if a Web service was able to return
references to other Web services.  But I'd be happy to be proven wrong.

Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
http://www.markbaker.ca             http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 16:15:41 UTC

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