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

RE: Dubray paper comments + questions

From: Xper|EnCe Campbell <fishy3@singnet.com.sg>
Date: Fri, 28 Feb 2003 08:41:35 +0800 (SGT)
To: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Message-ID: <1046392895.3e5eb03fc5f01@flounder.singnet.com.sg>
Cc: jdart@tibco.com, bhaugen <linkage@interaccess.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

Hi all,

I am an attachment student from Singapore SIMTech, and would appreciate that if I raise some doubts here.

Is the plan for now to build a generic model for all kinds of services (just like a superclass for Java), and when it had been greatly adopted, perhaps would venture more into scoping for various specific services (where Java comes with the sub classes) ?? 
Or should I say the plan is to work on something that almost the massive public would adopt, than "upgrade" it further; rather than to waste resources on something so detailed and end up to be put in one corner??


--- Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com> wrote:

> > Assaf Arkin wrote:
> > > For me it's appealing to have a language that can describe the
> > choreography
> > > of services and be part of the WS SOA. It's also appealing to
> have a
> > > language that described pre-negotiated business collaborations.
> And it's
> > > even more appealing if the service interaction resulting from a
> > combination
> > > of BPSS, RSS, CPA negotiation, etc could be described in terms
> > of a service
> > > choreography.
> >
> > I'm all for generality if it doesn't have an unacceptably high
> cost in
> > terms of complexity. But I'm afraid it will have a high cost, if
> we set
> > out to build a framework in which to model every possible form of
> > interaction. So I am concerned about scope creep. I also don't
> want to
> > duplicate what ws-arch is doing, namely, defining what constitutes
> a SOA
> > at a very high level of abstraction.
> On the contrary, we should conform to the WSA's definition of WS SOA
> at the
> proper level of abstraction, and to the WSD's definition of a
> service
> interface with WSDL being one possible syntax and a normative
> reference. So
> no doubt their work will influence ours.
> The question really boils down to simplicity. So at least three
> questions on
> my side:
> 1. Is simplicity better achieved by basing the choreography language
> on the
> same abstract model as proposed by the WSA, namely services and
> operations,
> or is simplcity better achieved by defining another construct,
> defining the
> choreography in terms of that construct, and defining mappings from
> that
> construct to the WSA abstract model?
> 2. In electing a very simple and generic model based on already
> defined
> communication idioms (Amy's term for what WSDL is working to define)
> helpful
> in achieving simplicity of the choreography language?
> 3. Assuming we take these communication idioms for granted and try
> to
> compose them into more complex long-running interactions, can we
> concieve a
> fairly simple language for doing that?
> arkin
> >
> >

Best wishes and Regards

owner of http://hamster.islovely.com
LiVe FrEe ~~~ Quoted from "The Scorpion King"
Received on Thursday, 27 February 2003 20:56:04 UTC

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