Re: Grounding Choreographies (the atoms) - WAS Simple Choreography composition suggestion

Apologies for the catch up on these threads.

Firstly let me say that Paul Lipton and XXX from UBS raise this point 
about relevance (or why do I need this anyway) at the F2F.

Secondly let me point people to the requirements spreadsheet and the 
use cases. One of the use cases certainly suggests how
this stuff might be used and several requirements allude to it also. To 
sumarise let me point people to:

	1. Yaron's use case document (don't have the uri to hand) - it 
contained a fairly comprehensive narrative on how a cDL
		might be used.
	2. Various requirements but one in particular from Greg R that talked 
about observability of a choreography for the purpose of
		tracking, monitoring and even runtime validation.

Not that I am shirking the responsibility of getting this written up. 
Indeed I would hope to see a direct answer to this in the requirements 
document - a state the problem and claim the solution, if you will.

Cheers

Steve T

On Friday, July 18, 2003, at 08:52  pm, Tony Fletcher wrote:

>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> I take no credit for raising this question - I think I remember Paul 
> Lipton
> asking it on one of the early Telecons six months or so ago.  But it is
> raised again in the mail below so I will surface it again explicitly.
>
> What is the use case for having a Choreography language of the type 
> that
> this group is trying to develop?  Who will use it or what will use it. 
>  At
> what stage(s) of designing and running business processes will it be 
> used?
> What will we be able to achieve when we have the language available 
> that we
> can not achieve now?  (And what are the advantages of expressing the
> language in XML syntax (I can list some disadvantages already!) rather 
> than
> just building the language ourselves (as Java, C#, Perl, etc., etc.)?
>
> The use cases we have all describe various business 'situations' or
> scenarios that the language could / should be able to describe but do 
> not
> describe how such a description would be used or what the benefits of 
> having
> one available would be.  (By the way if any of the authors of the use 
> cases
> have included this then apologies, thank you, and please point me to 
> chapter
> and verse (OK a URI will do!) and I will go and read properly.)
>
> I do have my own views on the answers to these questions but I am 
> hoping
> that others will respond with some sound reasons.  If people do I 
> really
> feel that it will focus and re-invigorate the group.
>
> Best Regards     Tony
> A M Fletcher
>
> Cohesions  (TM)
>
> Business transaction management software for application coordination
> www.choreology.com
>
> Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
> Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787   Fax: +44 (0) 20 7670 1785  Mobile: +44 (0) 
> 7801
> 948219
> tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org]
> On Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: 17 July 2003 19:25
> To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: RE: Grounding Choreographies (the atoms) - WAS Simple 
> Choreograph y
> composition suggestion
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Cummins, Fred A [mailto:fred.cummins@eds.com]
>> Sent: Thursday, July 17, 2003 1:59 PM
>> To: Martin Chapman; Steve Ross-Talbot; Champion, Mike
>> Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
>> Subject: RE: Grounding Choreographies (the atoms) - WAS Simple
>> Choreograph y composition suggestion
>>
>
>
>> While I agree that it should be possible to define a MEP with the
>> choreography langauge, I would not like a reliable messaging
>> choreography to be merged with a purchasing choreography.
>> I want the purchasing choreography to be expressed with the
>> reliable messaging protocol implied, i.e., abstracted out.
>>
>> The MEP will have implications to the design of the business
>> choreography.  Consequently, it may be necessary to incorporate a
>> reference so that the assumptions are clear, but I don't see a single
>> choreography incorporating both levels of abstraction in any more
>> complex way.
>
> Maybe we could agree that ...
>
> -- The underlying formalism we use or devise must be rich enough to 
> describe
> all known MEPs, and RM protocols, etc.
>
> -- The actual WS-Choreography language must be rich enough to describe 
> the
> interaction at the "logical" level, with RM, Security interactions, 
> etc.
> abstracted away.
>
> -- Our objective is that business choreography *languages* can be 
> built as a
> layer on top of WS-Choreography, not that it should be directly 
> useable by
> non-technical business analysts  .
>
>
> 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 Monday, 21 July 2003 05:22:44 UTC