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 13:22:21 -0800
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1443@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
David
 
I am not suggesting that we delete the travel example and I don't disagree
with you when you say: "Travel was one of the first things that programmatic
interfaces were put onto, it's been used in a whole bunch of different
choreography specs, and it absolutely is being used for web services today."
It is and will remain a good and valid use case. 
 
I'm suggesting that the eCommerce example I provided should be used as an
addition use case. My reasons for this are as follows:
1. XML based web services will eventually displace EDI as the main way of
doing electronic commerce
2. We should therefore include a use case that describes one of the typical
ways in which EDI is used today
 
I agree that EDI is not one of the main uses of web services today, but
shouldn't an architecture plan for the future as well?
 
David

-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 9:36 PM
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases


I just posted another message on why I think travel is a good example, and
why the generic scenario I came up with covers the main issues.
 
At this point, if the travel example isn't working, then let's just delete
the whole scenario from our documents and minds.  I'm not seeing much or any
support for what I've tried to do with adopting one scenario based upon the
one we have.  Though I'm baffled.  Travel was one of the first things that
programmatic interfaces were put onto, it's been used in a whole bunch of
different choreography specs, and it absolutely is being used for web
services today.  
 
Cheers,
Dave

-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com]
Sent: Tuesday, October 29, 2002 8:50 PM
To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler); 'David Orchard'
Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org'
Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases



Rogedr said ... 

I'm almost certainly oversimplifying, but it seemed to me that the picture 
emrging was one where the public, message driven parts were carrying most of

the business value of standardization, and the much more complex, 
process-involved aspects, particularly of BPEL, were shaking out as more 
relevant to implementation, not standardization. 

... I agree completely 

David 
PS Zahid and I have been unable to make posts for the last few days which
Hugo and Gerald at the W3C have now fixed. This is why we have been so quiet
recently ;)

-----Original Message----- 
From: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) [ mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com
<mailto:RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com> ] 
Sent: Monday, October 28, 2002 9:33 AM 
To: 'David Orchard' 
Cc: 'www-ws-arch@w3.org' 
Subject: RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases 



Although I mostly agree with what you are saying, I think it is unfortunate 
if we are totally focussing for choreography on the Travel Agency Use Case 
because I think that the business drivers for standardizing choreography in 
that one are rather weak.  It seemed to me that some discussion WAY, WAY 
back in the torrent of email was surfacing some usaqe cases where the 
business drivers are much clearer.  For example, 
http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0240.html
<http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-ws-arch/2002Oct/0240.html>  --
which I 
happen to be able to find easily, but there were also several others.  It 
seems to me that if you can see the business drivers clearly that helps to 
winnow the higher value portions of the problem.  For example, I believe 
that the comparisons of public/private, choreography/orchestration and 
message definition/executable (that one is not quite right, I know) were 
moving usefully in that direction. 

I have no desire to debate whether the choreography task needs to be done, I

am just suggesting a business driver approach to high-grading aspects of it.

I'm almost certainly oversimplifying, but it seemed to me that the picture 
emrging was one where the public, message driven parts were carrying most of

the business value of standardization, and the much more complex, 
process-involved aspects, particularly of BPEL, were shaking out as more 
relevant to implementation, not standardization. 

-----Original Message----- 
From: David Orchard [ mailto:dorchard@bea.com <mailto:dorchard@bea.com> ] 
Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 2:29 PM 
To: www-ws-arch@w3.org 
Subject: Stop the Choreography Definition insanity! 



I've been buried in the gajillion emails about choregraphy; heard proponents

of bpss, wscl, wsci, bpel4ws, and the expected "we don't need no stinking 
yet another ws-* spec" speak up.  This is impossible for a reasonable person

to follow, and certainly for our soon to be bewildered AC reps.  I have a # 
of proposals to help refine the process. 

1. No more "imagine application x.  Message flows blah blah blah" messages. 
I simply can't keep up with the restaurant ordering, POs, travel 
reservations, etc.  Purposefully or accidentally, the myriad of proposals 
prevents us from getting closure.  Let us use ONLY the travel agent usage 
scenario as defined in the *gasp* W3C Web Services Usage Scenarios and Use 
Cases document.  And if it needs additional steps/conditions added, then 
suggest specific changes to the scenario. 

2.  We need actual discussion of REQUIREMENTS, with proposed suggestions. 
For example, I might have requirements: 1. Order of operations MUST be 
expressible.  2.  Dependent Operations MAY be shown in public choreography. 
3. Conditions MAY be exposable.   Therefore, I get something like .. foo .. 

3. Use reasonable subject lines.  I suggest using the requirement (s).  For 
example, if you don't believe in ordering of operations, then the subject 
should reflect such.  Or dependent operations.  Or whatever, just not 
"choreography definition". 

4. Get real.  To be blunt, if this group decides that it wants to re-invent 
choregraphy languages from ground up with n inputs, it will be a total waste

of time.  Simply put, a number of companies are not prepared to go through 
the reinvent the wheel exercise again.  I can state for the record that BEA 
Systems isn't interested in that.  Perhaps it's too much to ask of a 
standards body, in such a short time, but we need to get to closure pretty 
darned fast, and political realities have to reflect that.  And we're going 
to have to find some way of dealing with the fact that some companies and 
people - some of whom aren't w3c member companies - don't want choreography 
done at the w3c at all, so not getting timely closure is a victory.  I have 
every confidence that if choreography isn't standardized at the W3C, it will

happen somewhere else, with commensurately different IPR conditions, process

and influence over the result.  And BEA Systems also believes that only 1 
choreography standard will survive. 

Cheers, 
Dave 
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 16:22:11 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:10 GMT