W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > November 2003

Re: choreography & orchestration must be defined in a context

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Fri, 28 Nov 2003 20:20:06 -0800
Message-ID: <3FC81E76.2050007@intalio.com>
To: "Burdett, David" <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
Cc: "'Monica J. Martin'" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>, Jean-Jacques Dubray <jeanjadu@Attachmate.com>, Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@enigmatec.net>, public-ws-chor@w3.org

My opinion is that "level 0" type of abstraction fails both test #2 and #3.

For "level 0" to pass test #2, there needs to be demand for a 
standardized mechanism to exchange such abstract process definitions. I 
do not see any demand for that, the only requirements I have at this 
level of abstraction are fully met by existing visual notations (BPMN, 
UML, etc).

Under #3 I would include the effort required to write the specification, 
review it, build an implementation, support the implementation, test for 
interoperability, etc. The benefit has to be significant for it to be 
considered "reasonable".

Like Monica, I would like to keep the scope at the level of Web 
services, and what I need to deliver is strictly a solution at the level 
of Web services.


Burdett, David wrote:

> Monica
> I understand your concerns about scope creep. However I suggest that 
> if we review scope changes carefully then we should be OK. 
> Specifically I think we should only extend scope if all the following 
> are true:
> 1. The extended scope must be capable of being very clearly defined
> 2. The benefit of extending the scope must be significant
> 3. The work required to handle the extended scope must be reasonable.
> I think that the "level 0" type of abstract definition meets all of 
> these.
> David
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, November 26, 2003 9:27 AM
> To: Ugo Corda
> Cc: Burdett, David; Jean-Jacques Dubray; Steve Ross-Talbot;
> public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: Re: choreography & orchestration must be defined in a context
> 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.
> >
> mm1: First is a semantic definition within the scope of WS-Choreography,
> particularly those described by David in Level 0? These seem to fall
> into the business category.  If we continue to expand the scope where
> does our boundary stop?
Received on Friday, 28 November 2003 23:21:14 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:15 UTC