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

RE: Choreography: Narrowing Down the Requirements

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Thu, 31 Oct 2002 11:31:58 -0800
To: "'Champion, Mike'" <Mike.Champion@softwareag-usa.com>, <www-ws-arch@w3.org>
Message-ID: <01dc01c28114$2e6fe7d0$4e0ba8c0@beasys.com>

Unless we want the choreography to do both.  Similar to xslt and xsl fo in
XSL, XLink and XPointer in XML Link, etc.?

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:28 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Choreography: Narrowing Down the Requirements
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hurley, Oisin [mailto:oisin.hurley@iona.com]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:04 PM
> > To: Champion, Mike; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: Choreography: Narrowing Down the Requirements
>
>
> > For example, I think that this particular call for
> > clarification is at too fine-grained a level for the
> > content of a charter. It does look like a scoping call
> > for sure, but look at the language - 'interface',
> > 'executable language' - these are means to an end, not
> > the end itself.
>
> Fair enough ... We don't want to take sides in the declarative
> vs procedural controversy!  On the other hand, I think we
> have a scoping issue here: are we forming a WG to define an
> "IDL" for choreography that merely constrains the execution
> of a business process, or an actual language that one can
> use to implement it?  That seems to be a fundamental
> requirement issue not a detail that should be left to the
> WG itself.
>
>
Received on Thursday, 31 October 2002 14:32:11 GMT

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