RE: "Orchestration" and "Choreography"

Ugo,
Traditional workflow has a sligtly different view of the problem.

Workflow is centered around coordination of activities: work manager,
work performer, assignees, resource allocation, etc...Each activity is
inacted at the right time, does it work and return something. Once an
activity is completed, we move to the next activity. The workflow engine
itself is shielded from the fact that activities are local, remote,
etc..

With web services, the approach is different: it is less about managing
activities as it is about sending and receiving XML messages...The
overlap between the 2 thing is the flow coordination constructs.

My point here is that to traditional workflow, the exchange of message
on the network is opaque (encapsulated within an activity) and something
they do not have to deal with directly..therefore there is not need for
choreorgraphy or orchestration.

Edwin 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: www-ws-arch-request@w3.org 
> [mailto:www-ws-arch-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Ugo Corda
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 10:42 AM
> To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: RE: "Orchestration" and "Choreography"
> 
> 
> 
> FWIW, I found out that the WfMC organization created a 
> workflow glossary a couple of years ago, but I could not find 
> either choreography or orchestration in that glossary.
> 
> Ugo
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Bunting [mailto:db134722@iplanet.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 8:42 AM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: 'bhaugen'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: "Orchestration" and "Choreography"
> 
> 
> 
> Roger,
> 
> Well put.  However, we need some definitions to get us along 
> to the next topic for discussion.  We can define 
> orchestration and choreography as equivalent, go with words 
> derived from Martin's music and dance analogy or come up with 
> something entirely new.  In all cases, everyone will need to 
> map their preconceived notions to our terms because many have 
> slightly different views.
> 
> I'd lean towards using Martin's analogy because it's 
> relatively close to most of our a priori (wrt WSAWG) knowledge.
> 
> thanx,
>     doug
> 
> "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" wrote:
> 
> > Yes, I was thinking of posting on that subject.  That was 
> why I was so 
> > surprised to hear that "orchestration" in IT involves a 
> "conductor".  
> > In musical circles orchestration refers more to a 
> composition activity 
> > than anything about performance.  Once orchestrated, in 
> fact a musical 
> > work can be performed without a conductor, and in fact for small 
> > ensembles that's
> the
> > norm.
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: bhaugen [mailto:linkage@interaccess.com]
> > Sent: Friday, August 16, 2002 6:41 AM
> > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> > Subject: RE: "Orchestration" and "Choreography"
> >
> > Orchestration
> > \Or`ches*tra"tion\, n. (Mus.) The arrangement of music for an 
> > orchestra; orchestral treatment of a composition; -- called also 
> > instrumentation.
> > Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, (c) 1996, 
> 1998 MICRA,
> Inc.
> >
> > Doesn't say anything about conducting.
> >
> > In Duke Ellington's band, Duke often composed the melodies, 
> and Billy 
> > Strayhorn often did the orchestration:  assigned parts to 
> instruments, 
> > wrote the sheets for each player, etc. Duke led (but rarely
> > conducted) the band.
> >
> > Christopher Ferris wrote (but disagreed with):
> > > In general, I think that most people have been using the terms 
> > > somewhat interchangably, e.g. without really thinking about or 
> > > inferring any hidden meaning.
> >
> > I think that is the state of affairs.
> >
> > W3C can of course make words mean whatever you want,
> > but will the world go along?
> >
> > -Bob Haugen
> 
>

Received on Friday, 16 August 2002 14:58:00 UTC