Re: Use Cases & Requirements

Yaron deserves thanks for producing this detailed writeup.

A couple of first-pass comments:

1. It is stated that in a cDl (Choregraphy description language), "the 
logic that controls a particular transition is given in prose rather 
than in an executable form" (p.1). The issue I see with this is that 
it's unenforceable. Also there's no guarantee that implementation stays 
in sync with the description.

2. The notion of an abstract process is introduced in the 2nd use case, 
as a point intermediate in complexity and specificity between a 
choreography description and an executable choreography. This is 
interesting. Actually if you take the whole document, there are 4 
possible levels discussed:

    a. Choreography description subset that allows round-tripping
    b. Full choreography description
    c. Abstract business process
    d. Executable business process.

The implications of these various levels for the spec are not fully 
clear to me.

I wonder if Yaron had something like the "external" portion of BPEL in 
mind at the abstract business process level.

--Jon

Yaron Y. Goland wrote:
> I would like to submit the following use cases and requirements for
> consideration by the working group -
> http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/www-archive/2003May/att-0029/chor.htm.
> 
> Besides providing what I personally believe to be critical requirements for
> the success of the working group I also think they help to outline what I
> believe to be the fundamental differences between what I think the W3C
> Choreography WG should be doing and what the BPEL OASIS TC is doing. Of
> course all opinions on such differences are mine and mine alone, your
> mileage may vary, objects in mirror are closer than they appear.
> 
> 		Yaron
> 
> 
>

Received on Monday, 19 May 2003 20:49:17 UTC