- From: Sadiq, Waqar <waqar.sadiq@eds.com>
- Date: Fri, 5 Apr 2002 09:48:32 -0600
- To: "Sedukhin, Igor" <Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com>, "Sadiq, Waqar" <waqar.sadiq@eds.com>, Jean-Jacques Moreau <moreau@crf.canon.fr>, Jeffrey Schlimmer <jeffsch@windows.microsoft.com>
- Cc: Web Services Private <w3c-ws-desc@w3.org>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Igor, Isn't one of the objectives of architecture group to justify the need for new work groups to be created, such as one for orchestration. I don't think that we should be considering it just because there is no other WG to consider it. If we say that orchestration and web service description, as in WSDL, belong to the same layer in the architecture stack than we have a reason to consider it. But I don't think you said that? I would not want to short change the architecture group of what it is supposed to do. _______________________________________________ Waqar Sadiq EDS EIT ESAI - Enterprise Consultant MS: H3-4C-22 5400 Legacy Drive Plano, Texas 75024 phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837) e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com fax: +01-972-605-4071 _______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Sedukhin, Igor [mailto:Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 9:25 AM To: Sadiq, Waqar; Jean-Jacques Moreau; Jeffrey Schlimmer Cc: Web Services Private; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Orchestration (was: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requireme nts) I also strongly suggest architecture group to start paying more attention to the immediate needs of WS infrastructure starting with orchestration. As of last conf.call, we seem to be winding a lot arround abstract vision differences. But, let me disagree with Waqar, I think that WSCL and all other similar flow *description* languages whould fall under joint consideration of architecture group (to fit it conceptually) and description group (to finalize details of the spec). There are only three groups in W3 that have to do with Web Services directly. According to the charter, anything conceptual goes to WSAWG, anything descriptive goes to WSDWG and anything "on the wire" goes to XMLP. Until a specific "orchestration" group is established... -- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com) -- (631) 342-4325 .. 1 CA Plaza, Islandia, NY 11788 -----Original Message----- From: Sadiq, Waqar [mailto:waqar.sadiq@eds.com] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 10:05 AM To: Jean-Jacques Moreau; Jeffrey Schlimmer Cc: Web Services Private; Sedukhin, Igor; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: RE: Orchestration (was: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requireme nts) I am cross-posting this to the architecture group also. I personally believe that a description language and orchestration language belong to different stacks in the web services reference model (none exists yet). I believe that orchestration layer adds a level of business intelligence that leverages the web services layer (described by WSDL) but the two are not the same. I vote to defer WSCL to the architecture group for consideration and not change the scope of what we are doing with WSDL. Thanks, _______________________________________________ Waqar Sadiq EDS EIT ESAI - Enterprise Consultant MS: H3-4C-22 5400 Legacy Drive Plano, Texas 75024 phone: +01-972-797-8408 (8-837) e-mail: waqar.sadiq@eds.com fax: +01-972-605-4071 _______________________________________________ -----Original Message----- From: Jean-Jacques Moreau [mailto:moreau@crf.canon.fr] Sent: Friday, April 05, 2002 2:18 AM To: Jeffrey Schlimmer Cc: Web Services Private; Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com Subject: Orchestration (was: W3C Web Service Description WG: Requirements) [Switching to w3c-ws-desc, since this may touch on member confidential issues.] Orchestration brings the question: what are we supposed to do with WSCL [1]? This does not seem to be considered out-of-scope [2], and the team's comment was that it should be brought to our attention [3]. Does this indicate a possible refinent for operations? Jean-Jacques. [1] http://www.w3.org/TR/wscl10/ [2] http://www.w3.org/2002/01/ws-desc-charter [3] http://www.w3.org/Submission/2002/02/Comment Jeffrey Schlimmer wrote: > R097: I'd suggest change it to "Must". (Now, this is NOT covered by > R036!) > [jeffsch: I agree that this is part of a general Web Service > definition, but I don't agree that this is appropriate to describe in > WSDL; it seems to border on orchestration.] > > -- Igor Sedukhin .. (Igor.Sedukhin@ca.com)
Received on Friday, 5 April 2002 10:48:43 UTC