- From: <Daniel_Austin@grainger.com>
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2003 13:28:39 -0500
- To: arkin@intalio.com
- Cc: Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, david.burdett@commerceone.com, jjd@eigner.com, public-ws-chor@w3.org, public-ws-chor-request@w3.org
Hi Assaf, i disagree with your statement below, simply because our charter specifically says that we will *not* create bindings to any specific language. Thus it is out of scope for us to develop bindings for WSDL, etc. Regards, D- ************************************************* Dr. Daniel Austin Sr. Technical Architect / Architecture Team Lead daniel_austin@notes.grainger.com <----- Note change! 847 793 5044 Visit http://www.grainger.com "If I get a little money, I buy books. If there is anything left over, I buy clothing and food." -Erasmus "Assaf Arkin" <arkin@intalio.com To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com> > cc: "'Jean-Jacques Dubray'" <jjd@eigner.com>, Daniel_Austin@grainger.com, Sent by: public-ws-chor@w3.org public-ws-chor-req Subject: Re: Straw-man Proposal for our mission statement uest@w3.org 05/12/2003 06:06 PM 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 Tuesday, 13 May 2003 14:28:47 UTC