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

RE: simultaneous execution

From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Date: Wed, 6 Aug 2003 15:26:23 -0700
Message-ID: <C1E0143CD365A445A4417083BF6F42CC053D1CD6@C1plenaexm07.commerceone.com>
To: "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
I think we are actually agreed on two objectives:
1. The need to create choreography definitions that are indpendent of the
message format, and
2. To define how choreography definitions are bound to Web Services and WSDL
in particular.
I don't think these objectives are mutually exclusive and we should be able
to do both. Does anyone disagree?

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 06, 2003 3:06 PM
To: Cummins, Fred A; Burdett, David
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Subject: RE: simultaneous execution

>+1 to defining how WS-Choreography binds to Web services. 

>The Charter specifically says: "The language(s) should build upon the
foundation of the WSDL 1.2". 

>WSDL 1.2 defines interfaces and end points. If we don't at least define
some precise mapping between WS-Choreography and WSDL interfaces, then I
don't see in which >way we are building "upon the foundation of WSDL 1.2".
[FAC] I believe we can do that without sacrificing broader applicability of
the choreography.  I'm more concerned that we not link the choreography to
the message formats. 

If your concern is about about linking the choreography to the message
formats on the wire, I would like to point out, as I have done before, that
a portType/interface message structure does not imply any commitment to a
format on the wire. It's only when the portType/interface is bound to a
particular service that the wire format is defined.

Received on Wednesday, 6 August 2003 18:26:31 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:10 UTC