- From: Steve Ross-Talbot <steve@pi4tech.com>
- Date: Tue, 10 May 2005 18:42:16 +0100
- To: 'WS-Choreography List' <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Begin forwarded message: > From: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com> > Date: 10 May 2005 16:58:00 BST > To: "Steve Ross-Talbot" <steve@pi4tech.com> > Subject: Re: Exit criteria - whatdoyouthink > > Comments inline: > > ----- Original Message ----- From: "Steve Ross-Talbot" > <steve@pi4tech.com> > To: "Gary Brown" <gary@pi4tech.com> > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 4:50 PM > Subject: Exit criteria - whatdoyouthink > > >> The exit criteria for the Web Services Choreography working group >> shall be as follows: >> >> 1. There MUST be a specification of WS-CDL >> >> 2. There MUST be a Primer elaborating how WS-CDL is to be used >> through means of at least one example. >> >> 3. There MUST be an example that exhibits all of the features of >> WS-CDL such that the example is: > > GB: The term "all of the features" may be difficult - because it means > that all implementations have to support alignment and coordination? > Would be better if these could be listed as features relying on > additional technology (and bindings) and therefore WS-CDL exit > criteria cannot be dependent upon them. > >> >> a. Encoded by at least two separate parties and shown to be valid >> WS-CDL >> b. End points are created by at least two separate parties from the >> WS-CDL description >> such that the examples run in at least two different platforms. >> c. The end points created can be shown to interoperate correctly >> according to the WS-CDL description >> >> >> Note: >> >> This allows us to have hand crafted WS-CDL descriptions from one or >> more parties and a single validating editor to import the WS-CDL >> definitions. >> >> This allows us to hand craft end points from a WS-CDL description or >> generate them using some tool to any two platforms (i.e. Java and >> WS-BPEL). >> >> This allows us to use a monitoring tool that validates the messages >> to/from and end point against the WS-CDL description. > > GB: I don't think that (c) implies monitoring - so we could leave > monitoring out. We could do it if relevant, but (c) could simply be > achieved by observing that a business transaction encoded in CDL has > completed successfully? > >> >> This does not require more than one company to provide an editor, >> auto-generation or monitoring software. But it does require more than >> one company to participate in the construction of (a) and (b) above. >> > > GB: Good > >> >> > > > >
Received on Tuesday, 10 May 2005 17:42:29 UTC