- From: bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 18:07:30 -0600
- To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
John Dart wrote: > I think a lot of this may be necessary, but (to revisit an earlier > issue raised on the list) I'm not sure that the requirements for > choreography necessitate a full-blown workflow modelling language. > In fact, I have some concern that the existing proposals may be > overly complex for modelling useful types of WS interaction > (especially in a B2B context), while being less than adequate > for more general worklow purposes, in which not everything > is directly in service of a WS message exchange. > Which is why the proposal to separate specification of message > flow from control flow was attractive, at least IMO. I'm with you. That's also why I favor separating the external conversations (e.g. B2B) from internal workflows. I don't even think procedural workflow is an appropriate model for external conversations. -Bob Haugen
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 19:08:24 UTC