- From: Burdett, David <david.burdett@commerceone.com>
- Date: Fri, 1 Nov 2002 13:15:48 -0800
- To: "'Mark Baker'" <distobj@acm.org>, "Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)" <RogerCutler@ChevronTexaco.com>
- Cc: "'David Orchard'" <dorchard@bea.com>, www-ws-arch@w3.org
Mark As I have described in my reply to Roger's email. Standardized choreography languages are not **required**, but they can definitely introduce huge savings in implementation costs. I also maintain, that unless the cost of implementation is kept down, there will be many instances when web service technology could have been used but won't be. The lack of proper standardization of EDI is the main reason why it has not been adopted by SMEs (Small to Medium Enterprises). We must not make the same mistake again. David -----Original Message----- From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org] Sent: Wednesday, October 30, 2002 9:21 PM To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) Cc: 'David Orchard'; www-ws-arch@w3.org Subject: Re: Stop the ... -> Usage Cases On Wed, Oct 30, 2002 at 04:19:40PM -0600, Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler) wrote: > I think to some extent we are talking at cross purposes here. If the > generic example you mention is the one I think it is, it certainly > illustrates the primary message patterns but is utterly silent about the > business value of standardization. +1 I'm really eager to know what kind of scenario requires a standardized choreography language. My position remains that there is no scenario that requires it, if a Web service was able to return references to other Web services. But I'd be happy to be proven wrong. MB -- Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile. Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA. http://www.markbaker.ca http://www.idokorro.com
Received on Friday, 1 November 2002 16:15:41 UTC