- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Mon, 12 May 2003 16:06:49 -0700
- To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- CC: "'Jean-Jacques Dubray'" <jjd@eigner.com>, Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org
My take on this: In reviewing other specifications in this space including security (the WS-Security stack, SAML, etc), coordination (WS-TX and BTP), reliable messaging (WS-RM(1) and WS-RM(2)) and even not yet discussed specifications such as WS-Policy, WS-Addressing, management specs, etc, they all seem to be recommend that we write choreographies using WSDL operations. These specification will either add additional dimensions by referencing the same WSDL operation we reference, or by being part of the protocol binding used by that WSDL operation (in effect also referencing them) when it comes time to actually exchange messages. So clearly the way to go is to write a choroegraphy definition by referencing WSDL operations. Then you get everything else that works with WSDL for free, including stuff that's available now and specs we anticipate will be standardized in the near future. Of course this only works with that list of specifications and relates specifications that are part of the WS stack. The question then becomes, are there other specifications we want to support that work in different ways indicating that we need to keep our options open? arkin Burdett, David wrote: >I find myself agreeing with JJ again when he says ... > >[JJ] yes, one of the value of the spec could be to offer a binding to >WSDL but remain open to other bindings. > >I think this is an important principle if only because, as bindings evolve, >which they surely will to support security, reliability etc, then only our >binding will need to change, the main spec, hopefull, should not need to >change. > >My $0.02c > >David > >-----Original Message----- >From: Jean-Jacques Dubray [mailto:jjd@eigner.com] >Sent: Friday, May 09, 2003 1:09 PM >To: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com; jjd@eigner.com >Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org >Subject: RE: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement > > > > > > >>> I don't necessarily buy the argument that we are only talking >>> >>> >about > > >>>the interactions between one WSDL-ized object and another. WSDL is >>> >>> >just > > >>>one >>> >>> -- "Those who can, do; those who can't, make screenshots" ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Assaf Arkin arkin@intalio.com Intalio Inc. www.intalio.com The Business Process Management Company (650) 577 4700 This message is intended only for the use of the Addressee and may contain information that is PRIVILEGED and CONFIDENTIAL. If you are not the intended recipient, dissemination of this communication is prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please erase all copies of the message and its attachments and notify us immediately.
Received on Monday, 12 May 2003 19:09:09 UTC