RE: The elevator pitch

 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Steve Ross-Talbot [mailto:steve@enigmatec.net] 
> Sent: Tuesday, October 14, 2003 3:14 PM
> To: public-ws-chor@w3.org
> Subject: The elevator pitch
> 


I'm not sure sure that Choreography has much to say about quality of service
issues.  Maybe these could be useful application domains, but stressing it
now seems like "got solution, looking for problem" to me.

I do like points 3 and 4 a lot better -- a WS Choreography language had darn
well better make it faster to build complex services and make them more
robust in the face of inevitable change.  

> 
> 	3. Maybe we can use a choreography definition as input 
> to Web Services tools that can generate the appropriate Web 
> Services so that interoperablity as a collection of services. 

Hmm, do we see a CDL as an input to a Web services generator, or the
knowledge base for a higher-level service that allows existing services to
be coordinated and the agreed-upon interactions to be validated?  I'd
prefer: "A CDL will be used by a new generation of Web services tools that
can coordinate and ensure interoperability among a collection of services,
some of which may have already been deployed."


> 
> 	4. Perhaps a choreography definition could be used to 
> ensure that unwanted changed are spotted by a choreography 
> definition based monitoring tool and alert the necessary 
> parties of what is wrong.

Good, but let's make it stronger, perhaps: "Existing business process
execution languages and products generally assume that the service
environment is centrally controlled and tightly managed. This is not always
a realistic assumption, especially when multiple businesses are involved, or
separate parts of a large organization are trying to work together.
Likewise, replacing a division's working systems with unproven technology
that is supposed to make the overall organization work better is often a
source of friction and failure.  WS Choreography facilitates service
interactions in a situation where diversity is a given and un-coordinated
change is inevitable, by monitoring interactions to spot changes that
violate the agreed-upon choreography and alerting the various parties that
something is wrong."

Actually, after writing that I see that we *are* talking about "service
level agreements" here.  Maybe points 1 and/or 2 could be inserted here ...
But let's not start with them because "SLA" is an instant sleep aid for most
people :-)

Received on Thursday, 16 October 2003 11:21:41 UTC