- From: Francis McCabe <fgm@fla.fujitsu.com>
- Date: Wed, 2 Jul 2003 14:51:55 -0700
- To: Steve <steve@enigmatec.net>
- Cc: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>, "Cummins, Fred A" <fred.cummins@eds.com>, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, "Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
+1 Frank On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 02:57 AM, Steve wrote: > > Given the heated discussion last night I must concur fully with Nick. > Furthermore I think the correct approach is to take the work done at > the F2F as the mission statement for this group and revisit it as and > when we need to. We can add additional paragraphs clarifying the terms > used (like semantics) and we can clarify the approach we are taking > (i.e. being fairly practical and being delivery focussed on behalf of > users of this technology and vendors who will build products based on > this technology). > > I humbly suggest that the mission statement from the F2F is *only* > tidied up and then put into the requirements document. > > Cheers > > Steve T > > On Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 03:40 am, Nickolas Kavantzas wrote: > >> >> During the Chicago F2F, the W3C Choreography Group agreed and later >> presented to the BPEL TC chairs its mission statement. >> This statement was presented by the BPEL TC chairs to the BPEL TC >> members, in last week's BPEL TC conf-call. >> >> I think we may want to revisit it only when we have a better >> understanding on the use cases and requirements, and have made some >> progress on the harvesting fronts. Then questions like 'what >> semantics of web services really means' will become more easier for >> us to > answer. >> >> "Cummins, Fred A" wrote: >> >>> Martin, et al, >>> >>> Try this approach: >>> >>> The mission of the W3C Web Services Choreography Working Group is to >>> define >>> a choreography language for specification of the acceptable >>> sequences of >>> exchange of messages by participants as they attempt to achieve a >>> desired >>> business transaction. The language must be expressed in XML. A >>> choreography specification must complement the WSDL service >>> specifications >>> of participants. The choreography language should be able to >>> express the >>> composition of more complex exchanges from simpler exchanges or >>> subordinate >>> services. >>> >>> A choreography specification should enable each participant to >>> determine >>> alternative message types that the participant may send as the >>> exchange >>> progresses as well as the alternative message types it should be >>> prepared to >>> receive from other participant(s). >>> >>> Fred >>> >>>> -----Original Message----- >>>> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] >>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 3:28 PM >>>> To: Steve Ross-Talbot; Yaron Y. Goland >>>> Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org >>>> Subject: RE: Revised: Mission Statement >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> I thought by our discussion at the F2F that the "in the >>>> middle of all of >>>> them" is not what we are after, and in effect equates to the >>>> O word. So I >>>> would be interested in a better understanding of what >>>> composition means, >>>> given that this approach would not really support a wrapper >>>> wsdl. I'm not >>>> arguing against composition here, just asking for some clarity. >>>> >>>> Martin. >>>> >>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org >>>>> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Steve >>>>> Ross-Talbot >>>>> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 10:52 AM >>>>> To: Yaron Y. Goland >>>>> Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org >>>>> Subject: Re: Revised: Mission Statement >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> +1 >>>>> >>>>> Having some understanding of the achitecture of this thing >>>> that we are >>>>> doing >>>>> would help us stay on the same page. >>>>> >>>>> If we have a global model then where does it sit with >>>> respect to any N >>>>> participants. >>>>> Is it in the middle of all of them? >>>>> Is it at each one's site? >>>>> Is it a proxy sort of thing? >>>>> Is it a web service itself? >>>>> >>>>> What happens when we have two of them and we wish to compose? >>>>> What happens to the originals? >>>>> Where does the new one reside? >>>>> >>>>> I could go on. It would just be nice to get a common >>>> understanding. I >>>>> have mine >>>>> but I'm not sure it's the same as other peoples. >>>>> >>>>> Cheers >>>>> >>>>> Steve T >>>>> >>>>> On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 06:33 pm, Yaron Y. Goland wrote: >>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> The key issue for me is what does it mean to compose a >>>> web service? >>>>>> Does >>>>>> this mean a new WSDL with some computer behind it that >>>> then forwards >>>>>> requests to existing web services? Does this mean that a client is >>>>>> expected >>>>>> to send messages to different WS who all have some kind of >>>>>> relationship with >>>>>> each other? It's so vague that I'm not sure what scope we would be >>>>>> signing >>>>>> up for. >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>>> -----Original Message----- >>>>>>> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com] >>>>>>> Sent: Monday, June 30, 2003 2:22 PM >>>>>>> To: Yaron Y. Goland >>>>>>> Cc: Francis McCabe; Burdett, David; Bonneau, Richard; >>>> Assaf Arkin; >>>>>>> Jean-Jacques Dubray; public-ws-chor@w3.org >>>>>>> Subject: Re: Revised: Mission Statement >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Goland: I don't understand what the terms service composition >>>>>>> and service semantics >>>>>>>> mean. Could someone please define them? Monica provides >>>> a whole mess >>>>>>>> of >>>>>>>> definitions but having 10 definitions is just as bad as >>>> having none. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> mm1: The definitions were a compilation on various types of >>>>>>> composition from the team. We have not settled on one >>>>>>> definition, although I have provided one below that seems >>>>>>> appropriate here for consideration. The definitions provided >>>>>>> span different areas of composition, and whether the team agrees >>>>>>> they are all the same, I can not speculate on. I think it >>>>>>> evidences the multiple levels of discussions that are occurring. >>>>>>> Don't shoot the messenger. I would propose: **A service >>>>>>> composition is a composition of services that results in a new >>>>>>> service. The new service can be the combination of distinct parts >>>>>>> to form a whole of the same generic type. The web services could >>>>>>> be combined to achieve a specific goal.* *This integrates parts >>>>>>> of the definitions of recursive, web service and choreography >>>>>>> composition. >>>>>>>> Monica >>>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal >>>> privilege. If >>>>>> you are not the intended recipient, please do not copy >>>> or disclose >>>>>> its content but delete the email and contact the sender >>>> immediately. >>>>>> Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not >>>>>> liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised >>>> to run their >>>>>> own antivirus software. >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal >>>>> privilege. If you are not the intended recipient, please do not >>>>> copy or disclose its content but delete the email and contact >>>>> the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all >>>>> internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The >>>>> recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software. >>>>> >>>>> >>>> >> >> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. >> If you are not the intended recipient, please do not copy or >> disclose its content but delete the email and contact the sender >> immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails >> we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to >> run their own antivirus software. >> > > This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If > you are not the intended recipient, please do not copy or disclose > its content but delete the email and contact the sender immediately. > Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not > liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their > own antivirus software. >
Received on Wednesday, 2 July 2003 17:52:42 UTC