- From: <ChBussler@aol.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Feb 2003 22:33:29 -0500
- To: linkage@interaccess.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
- Cc: chbussler@aol.com
Hi, I agree. The question is, what is the 'smallest' model for defining B2B (or EAI) interactions. Christoph In a message dated 2/26/2003 7:07:30 PM Eastern Standard Time, linkage@interaccess.com writes: > > > > 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 ------------------------------------------------------ Christoph Bussler ChBussler@aol.com hometown.aol.com/ChBussler/ www.google.com/search?q=bussler www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=bussler&btnI=I%27m+Feeling+Lucky ------------------------------------------------------
Received on Wednesday, 26 February 2003 22:34:12 UTC