RE: Proposed Draft Charter for Choreography WG

 
-----Original Message-----
From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com]
Sent: Friday, November 08, 2002 2:39 PM
To: edwink@collaxa.com; 'Jeff Mischkinsky'; www-ws-arch@w3.org
Subject: RE: Proposed Draft Charter for Choreography WG


 
 
 BEA is also interested in the visualization aspects.  Though we do like the
idea of reusing UML in this regard.  However, are we ready to start
standardization on this?  Doesn't seem to be the same momentum. 
 
I'd like to suggest that our architecture has to include these transaction
and visualization aspects in discussions around choroegraphy.  We need
glossary terms, requirements, etc. 
 There's a placeholder for "long running transactions" in the current WSA
document, and time on the F2F agenda to discuss this feature and how we plan
to deal with it.
 
Visualization is an interesting subject that I don't think we've talked
about much.  I think we beat back a suggested requirement to be "tool
friendly" ... but I must confess that since this WG began it has become
increasingly apparent that most of the world agrees with Edwin that "XML is
a pretty inhuman programming language".  Obviously the GUI interfaces to
generate the SOAP, WSDL, and all the other headers and extensions that will
be needed by security, choreography, etc. are out of scope for
standardization.  On the other hand, *we* have to understand this stuff in
some notation that we can all grok, and it's possible that the raw XML isn't
suitable.  
 
I'm intrigued by Edwin's comment "BPML learned the hard way that the
notation language was a very important aspect of the usability and therefore
could not be an after thought."  Can someone elaborate on that and what
BPML's experience suggests to us?