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

RE: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 21:36:21 -0800
To: <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <008e01c27fd6$47bd9190$4e0ba8c0@beasys.com>
RE: Stop the ... -> Usage CasesI 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]
  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 -- 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]
  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 Wednesday, 30 October 2002 00:36:22 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Tuesday, 3 July 2007 12:25:09 GMT