BPSS and ISO T68/WG4

Monica,

I got the minutes from our last ISO WG4 meeting. Included is the  
following:

Q: How does the choreography compare with that in WS-CDL?
A: The choreographies are not very different, but if you port BPSS  
into CDL a lot of material is not carried over. However the BPSS  
choreography was developed empirically from actual projects and is  
not based on Pi Calculus or any other academic body of thought.

What specifically is lost when xlating from BPSS to WS-CDL?

What would be lost in xlating from WS-CDL to BPSS?

WS-CDL may be based on pi-calculus but this does not mean that does  
not have a grounding in business requirements. As you well know the  
Choreography WG embarked on a specific requirements gathering phase  
before turning it's attention to the language that we know as WS-CDL.  
Furthermore as part of the review of the WG (including your good  
self) we checked the requirements against WS-CDL and found that we  
had met them all. Those requirements can be found at:

http://www.w3.org/TR/2004/WD-ws-chor-reqs-20040311/

Basing a language on a formalism (pi-calculus or another) has a  
benefit that you may have missed. It is that we can examine just what  
we can express in a rigorous way. Not having a formalism is similar  
to building bridges and airplanes on the basis of empirical  
observation. I do not think that this would be allowed because of the  
importance bridges and airplanes have in today's society. We would  
not want them to break or fall out of the sky. So think formalisms  
are a very good thing and have underpinned good engineering from the  
very start of engineering. I think that you may have forgotten to  
make this point to WG4.

The Choreography WG looks forward to working with the BPSS TC, as it  
has always done.


Best Regards

Steve Ross-Talbot

Chair W3C Web Services
co-Chair W3C Web Services Choreography

C: +44 7855 268 848
O: +44 207 193 4412