RE: Uses of the WS Choreography Spec

I am not suggesting that we define complex business processes (e.g. how to
place an order), I am suggesting that we define a language that allows
others to define these processes. I also think that this realistic to
accomplish. If you don't I would like to understand your reasons why?

David

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com]
Sent: Tuesday, March 18, 2003 8:16 PM
To: Burdett, David
Cc: WS Choreography (E-mail)
Subject: Re: Uses of the WS Choreography Spec


Are we expanding the scope to encompass the complex business processes,
evident in B2B or bounding what we can realistically accomplish?

Thanks.

"Burdett, David" wrote:

>
>
> I think it might be useful to identify the potentials uses to which
> the specifications developed by this group could be put as, it will
> help us identify requirements,and start of by suggesting a couple - I
> am sure there are others ...
>
> PUBLIC CHOREOGRAPHY DEFINITION
> This use of a choreography definition would allow standards groups to
> define "Public Choreographies", for example RoesttaNet to define their
> PIPs, or, organizations like UN/CEFACT to define standard public
> choreographies for international trade.
>
> The main benefit of standard choreographies would be that software
> vendors could build solutions that could then be used directly for B2B
> with less adaptation. As a result the cost of doing B2B would go down
> significantly.
>
> However if you follow this through this requirement through, it leads
> to a couple of additional requirements on the way in which
> choreographies are defined, including:
>
> 1. Detailed message format independence. Business documents
> necessarily vary in their structure, for eaxmple: a) Invoices in the
> US include sales tax whereas in Europe they contain VAT, or b) line
> items on travel related invoice could contain flight segment
> information. This means that the choreography defintion should be
> independent of any specific document format.
>
> 2. Service implementation independence. The same choreography must
> work no matter who has implemented the services that generate and
> accept the messages in the choreogrpaphy. This means it should be
> possible to define a choreography independently of the WSDL.
>
> RUN-TIME CHOREOGRAPHY CHECKING
> A choreography definition should be usable at run time to check that
> an implementation is generating and receiving messages in the correct
> sequence. Since successful B2B is completely dependent on following a
> choreography correctly, then being able to check that messages are
> being sent in the correct sequence is independent. If this can be done
> by interpreting the choreography definition, then it allows new
> definitions to be implemented with confidence.
>
> Thoughts? Any other ideas?
>
> David
>
> Director, Product Management, Web Services
> Commerce One
> 4440 Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
> Tel/VMail: +1 (925) 520 4422; Cell: +1 (925) 216 7704
> mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com; Web: http://www.commerceone.com

Received on Wednesday, 19 March 2003 13:59:31 UTC