W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2003

RE: Internal processes and/or external choreographies (was RE: Events and States ...

From: Patil, Sanjaykumar <sanjay.patil@iona.com>
Date: Fri, 11 Apr 2003 10:23:55 -0700
To: "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com>, "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>
Cc: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, <jdart@tibco.com>, <public-ws-chor@w3.org>

I am wondering whether this "glue" (or silver line, etc) also address the much blamed for Busienss-IT divide issue. I mean, does the discussion around external/internal also apply to solving the use case where - the sole responsibility of IT is to take care of the nitty-gritty of standalone services, and the Business folks are empowered with "building and owning" the dynamic, flexible business processes.

I have seen in numerous recent articles (and books also, see Howard Smith's book, I forgot the name) an outcry for supporting business processes as first class applications and not necessarily to be perceived as a solution for integrating legacy applications. 

In doing so, a critical requirement it seems is that the designer, user and manager of the business processes should be the business folks themselves. I guess we don't expect the business people to read XML language itself, but perhaps we can serve them better by limiting the details when it comes to providing them a limited but complete view.

Sanjay Patil
Distinguished Engineer
IONA Technologies
2350 Mission College Blvd. Suite 650
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Tel: (408) 350 9619
Fax: (408) 350 9501
Making Software Work Together TM

-----Original Message-----
From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
Sent: Friday, April 11, 2003 9:57 AM
To: Martin Chapman
Cc: 'Burdett, David'; 'Cummins, Fred A'; jdart@tibco.com;
Subject: Re: Internal processes and/or external choreographies (was RE:
Events and States ...

I agree.

We have different opinion on how much capabilities we want in the 
language in terms of what it can describe. Some want a language that is 
only capable of expressing shared states that are general enough but 
satisfactory for most B2B use cases. Others want more capabilities that 
*in addition* to the above and not as replacement, also support more 
complex scenarios, e.g. the ones you would see in A2A or optionally 
exposing part of the white/black box.

We can go either way, but if we fail to consider the importance of the 
"glue" requirement, I have the feeling we will end up with a superb 
specification that has no practical use.


Martin Chapman wrote:

>Maybe the answer is staring us in the face:
>When we talk about external definitions we seem to be implying a shared
>state machine. There is a common understanding between all parties about
>who is playing what role, what states each role can  get into, the
>(shared) state of the process itself etc. [is this what is commonly
>called a global model?]
>On the other hand an internal defintion seems to define a state machine
>that is not shared  (tho may or may not be visible i.e. could be black
>box or white box). So what states you need, what tranistions you make,
>how you name other parties is totally private.
>Obviously the two have to be glued together at some point.
>As a group we have to decide whether we are working on shared state
>machines vs priavte ones, or both. In all case we will have to look at
>the "glue" requirements.

"Those who can, do; those who can't, make screenshots"
Received on Friday, 11 April 2003 13:25:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:00 UTC