- From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
- Date: Wed, 26 Nov 2003 09:13:50 -0800
- To: Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>
- Cc: "Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>, Jean-Jacques Dubray <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>, Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, public-ws-chor@w3.org
Ugo Corda wrote: >Monica, >So are you are saying that level 0 should be out of scope? I bet David might be able to derive the opposite conclusion ;-). > >I suspect we should be much more explicit than that. > >Ugo > > Explicitly, I do not believe that level 0 is of interest to this working group. This doesn't mean I don't see any validity in level 0, on the contrary, I just don't see the need to standardize it within the W3C. All the use cases I have to deal with are about services knowing how to communicate with each other, whether for looking up matching services, framing the implementation, validating the execution, etc. A useful definition language that meets those requirements needs to be concrete about the interfaces being used, which means level 1. One way to generate level 1 definitions is to have an abstract level 0 definition and then tailor it to interface definitions and exchange it. That's an approach that many vendors could take, and I see value in that. But I see the level 1 definitions as being exchanged, at the moment I do not have a single use case for exchanging level 0 definitions that is not met by UML. Hence, I don't see any value for the W3C putting an effort into standardizing a language for level 0 definitions. arkin
Received on Wednesday, 26 November 2003 12:17:47 UTC