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

Re: Dubray paper comments + questions

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
Message-ID: <0595FBD8.797E2819.02220297@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

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:29:54 UTC