- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Wed, 13 Aug 2003 13:18:18 -0700
- To: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
- CC: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, "'Cummins, Fred A'" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, "'Keith Swenson'" <KSwenson@fsw.fujitsu.com>, "'Monica Martin'" <monica.martin@sun.com>, "'Martin Chapman'" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "'Yves Lafon'" <ylafon@w3.org>, jdart@tibco.com, "'Ugo Corda'" <UCorda@seebeyond.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
+1 It seems to me that we need to be practical in our approach and focus on solving a problem in the world of WS. If in the future we would find a different architecture, we can always carry the lessons learned and work out a solution for that architecture. But at this point I just don't see the benefit of doing anything that is not WS related. Nickolas Kavantzas wrote: > I am not really sure why we need to have 2 docs (1. CHOREOGRAPHY > DEFINITION LANGUAGE (CDL) and 2. CHOREOGRAPHY BINDING SPECIFICATION). > > I believe that we should create a CHOREOGRAPHY DEFINITION LANGUAGE for > *Web Services* (*CDL4WS*) that uses WSDL 1.2/XML Schema features to > bind the abstract choreography constructs to concrete things like > data-types, message formats/protocols, endpoint-references, etc. > > The CDL4WS can provide a lot of value add to the Web Services user > community compared to what exists now. > > BTW, BPEL4WS has taken a similar design approach, where they architect > their specs for the WS-stack by using all WS-existing specs and > extending/creating new ones only when necessary. As a result of this > approach they have created "Business Process Execution Language* for > Web Services"* and not just "Business Process Execution Language". > >
Received on Wednesday, 13 August 2003 17:49:34 UTC