- From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
- Date: Fri, 14 Nov 2003 20:16:47 -0700
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>
- Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
>Corda: Steve, > >I think your orchestration definition below is too vague and could refer to meanings that are not related to orchestration at all (for example, "the way a single Web service should be used is by sending messages as specified in the corresponding WSDL file, at the address specified in the same file"). > >A more appropriate definition would be, in my mind, something like: > >A written business protocol (i.e. abstract WS-BPEL) description documents how a set of Web Services should be "used", as expressed from the point of view of one of the participating Web services...... > mm1: I would be inclined to agree with Ugo. On Steve's point (and thanks Steve for the impetus), I would add that the choreography definition describes how a set of web services conforms to the definition when the services are used. >Ross-Talbot: As an aside from all of the stuff going on in requirements I would be interested on peoples take on what Frank postulated as a distinction between the O word and the C word. As a guiding principle in how we may view a CDL is this helpful? > >Suppose we changed it slightly to read: > > A written choreography description documents how a set of Web Services should be "used". > >This minor change could then incorporate design-time use as well as run-time use (for conformance and compliance to a choreography). > > >>>McCabe: >>>I am aware that the O word is taboo. However, the following occurred to me during the last F2F: A written choreography description documents how to *use* a set of Web services: A written orchestration description documents how to *control* a set of Web services. >>> >>>
Received on Friday, 14 November 2003 22:10:44 UTC