Re: Abstract, portable and concrete choreographies ... a proposed solution?? from Monica J. Martin on 2004-04-27 (public-ws-chor@w3.org from April 2004)

From: Monica J. Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>
Date: Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:00:54 -0600
To: david.burdett@commerceone.com
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Message-id: <408DF716.7070709@sun.com>

David, I am concerned you are adding complexity here.  Comments:

    * Adding specialization of PackageBinding. This assumes that the
      business semantics are a part of the WS-CDL (and in import). They
      are not.
    * Note 5: What impacts are realized if you change the original WSDL
      definitions on the fly? How do you insure conformance when you
      begin to change the underlying semantics that are expected? Aren't
      these actually different WSDL definitions rather than an
      augmentation of an existing one?
    * It appears that you are adding more semantics that already occur
      in existing open standards. What is the provocation to create anew
      that could be used in existing technologies? Isn't a mapping a
      easier path?
    * What is the benefit of a fully abstract choreography? This relates
      to previous question about recreating the wheel of other technologies.
    * You are adding yet another layer of abstraction in your
      definitions - this is complexity may not be prudent and may
      actually serve as an impediment to adoption by industry (abstract,
      concrete-based on abstract, concrete with fillings, portable with
      partial, etc and more....)

Thanks.

Received on Tuesday, 27 April 2004 02:04:53 UTC