W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > April 2004

Re: question: relation between WS-CDL and WSCI

From: Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2004 18:11:31 -0700
Message-ID: <408478C3.3000804@intalio.com>
To: Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>
Cc: Titi Roman <dumitru.roman@deri.ie>, WS-Choreography List <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Nickolas Kavantzas wrote:

See comments about WS-CDL below.


Titi Roman wrote:

>Hi Assaf,
>Thanks a lot for clarifying some things...still some questions in-line.
>Which are these other proposals(I am just trying to understand what you
>meant by "any language can be viewed as operational compared to a more
>abstract language")?
Go back to the archives from the beginning of the working group, you'll 
find a lot of discussions about various proposals for what a 
choreography language should be. By proposal I mean any idea put on the 
table, including ideas for specifications to be written and ideas for 
revising existing specifications. There was a lot of discussions and a 
lot of great ideas thrown around.

One of the points of contention, aside from who's view is it, was the 
proper level of abstraction, with different proposals arguing for 
different levels of abstractions. Generally speaking, a proposal that 
advocates independence from WSDL would tend to view a proposal like WSCI 
as being too operational and not abstract enough. WSCI however deals 
with interfaces and behavior types, and would consider an execution 
language like BPEL to be too operational and not abstract enough.

>Does these mean that WSCI is really dead (as Steve Ross-Talbot pointed out
>in one of his emails)?
No effort to take it to the next step and no vendor product support that 
I know of.

>As far as I understood and please correct me if I am wrong, WS-CDL supports
>only "global model"(i.e. the multi-participant view of the overall message
>exchange) - this sounds to me as a static linking between web services. What
>about the dynamic linking between ws from the point of view if
It's a linkage between two interfaces, not two services. So it's not static in the respect that a global model only links service A and service B. And the linkage is there to allow composition, so you can reuse the same interface in any number of compositions (global models) that fits. 


Received on Monday, 19 April 2004 22:17:42 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:24 UTC