Re: Abstract Bindable Choreography

UML diagrams may be useful for the examples, especially activity 
diagrams. Stephen's BPMN diagrams also looked pretty readable to me - 
this notation is better suited to business processes than UML, IMO.

The XML representation of UML is horribly complex, and isn't directly 
readable unless you have a tool that imports it. So I wouldn't really 
advocate producing those files. If the purpose is to convey a diagram, 
there is a standard called JPEG that works pretty well for that :-). Re 
the choreography standard itself, I think the cost of trying to fit it 
into something like XMI is greater than the benefit.

--Jon

Assaf Arkin wrote:
> 
>>
>>
>> 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
>>
> 
>

Received on Friday, 4 April 2003 17:47:36 UTC