Re: Abstract Bindable Choreography

>
>
> 6. So which should you use, UML or XML? Now UML does have an XML 
> represenation, but it is proprietary (I think) to Rational and focuses 
> on describing the structure of any UML document rather than the 
> structure of a choreography. On the other hand using XML to define a 
> choreography would provide a development environment neutral 
> definition which is specifically designed for the purpose. It would be 
> easier to feed into a state machine that was validating that a 
> choreography was being correctly followed at run-time.
>
UML can be represented using XMI. XMI is standardized by the OMG, it's 
not proprietary, and I am aware of a few tool vendors that support it. 
There are also several APIs (OMG and Java) for handling XMI-based 
documents. So an XML representation of UML does exist and can be used by 
vendors.

XMI is indeed very generic, but when you use XMI to represent UML 
activity/statechart diagrams it becomes specific to expressing these 
kind of flows. At this level it is "typed" enough to define the flow of 
activities for both design time and run time.

It becomes complicated if the interaction is typed in terms of Web 
service types as expressed by WSDL/XSD and related technologies. In this 
case it becomes more efficient to both propose a framework that is based 
on WSDL/XSD and specific to WS choreography, and also to propose a 
language that is constrained by that framework.

In my opinion the utility comes from a framework for addressing 
choreography of Web services. It's new and it's interesting. Addressing 
abstract flows is also interesting, but it can be done using existing 
technologies, so it's not new. I simply don't see the utility in 
re-inventing UML/XMI.

arkin

> Thoughts?
>
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> Sent: Friday, April 04, 2003 10:12 AM
> To: 'Burdett, David'; 'WS Choreography (E-mail)'
> Subject: RE: Abstract Bindable Choreography
>
>
> David,
>
> I have a strong feeling that you can get what you want by exstiing
> technologies such as UML. In the past I have used use cases and activity
> diagrams to express reusable interactions between parties. Diagramtic
> notations are explicitly out of scope of our charter, and I'm not sure
> if there is any benefit in a specific xml language  to express the same
> thing.
>
> Martin.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Burdett, David
> > Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2003 11:09 AM
> > To: WS Choreography (E-mail)
> > Subject: Abstract Bindable Choreography
> >
> >
> > There has been some discussion around the idea of an abstract
> > bindable choreography so I thought I would provide an example
> > in the form of a diagram (PDF) which shows the flow
> > associated with the placement of an order and an XML
> > representation of the same in a declarative style. I strongly
> > suggest you look at the diagram first.
> >
> > Comments welcome ;-)
> >
> > David
> >  <<PlaceOrderChoreography.pdf>>
> >  <<PlaceOrderChoreography.xml>>
> >
> > Director, Product Management, Web Services
> > Commerce One
> > 4440 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
> > Tel/VMail: +1 (925) 520 4422; Cell: +1 (925) 216 7704
> mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
>


-- 
"Those who can, do; those who can't, make screenshots"

----------------------------------------------------------------------
Assaf Arkin                                          arkin@intalio.com
Intalio Inc.                                           www.intalio.com
The Business Process Management Company                 (650) 577 4700


This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and
may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL.
If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this
communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication
in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments
and notify us immediately.

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 17:20:24 UTC