- From: Jean-Jacques Dubray <jjd@eigner.com>
- Date: Mon, 3 Mar 2003 12:25:51 -0500
- To: <jdart@tibco.com>, "'Howard N Smith'" <howard.smith@ontology.org>
- Cc: <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Jon, Howard: I also agree to the extent that ws-chor should not produce something that is complex to use for simple cases. The key in adopting new technologies is the "cost of entry" versus the benefits. I can speak from a specific experience that it is not that trivial to weight the benefits of BPM/ws-chor concepts with respect to the rigidity of a choreography definition for instance. I personally thought that it was clear, but obviously either I was wrong or it was harder for some other people to see these benefits or it required too complex of an infrastructure to deal with. It is important to distinguish a design benefit (which do not require a specific run-time implementation, i.e. could still hard code what is going on), from the benefit of a run-time enforcement/execution of the choreography. Jean-Jacques >>-----Original Message----- >>From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] >>On Behalf Of Jon Dart >>Sent: Monday, March 03, 2003 11:56 AM >>To: Howard N Smith >>Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org >>Subject: Re: Dubray paper comments + questions >> >> >>Howard N Smith wrote: >>> >> >>> These are requirements because they occur in real business processes, >>> and real business processes are what technologists should >>> be focussed on supporting, not our ideas about how companies should and >>> should not do B2B. >> >>I don't believe I was stating an opinion about how B2B should be done; I >>was talking about the state of current practice. >> >>I dont think B2B is the scope. I think >>> BPM is the scope, and in BPM, a lot more happens than in narrower >>> definitions of B2B. >> >>I agree. >> >>--Jon >> >>
Received on Monday, 3 March 2003 12:25:08 UTC