RE: Definition of Choreography

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Baker [mailto:distobj@acm.org]
> Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 3:45 PM
> To: Cutler, Roger (RogerCutler)
> Cc: 'Dave Hollander'; Burdett, David; 'Mark Baker'; Champion, Mike;
> www-ws-arch@w3.org
> Subject: Re: Definition of Choreography
> 
> 
> Another +1 from me.  Let's see some use cases that 
> demonstrate why it's important to expose choreographies.  
> Because as we've seen from these
> specs, they're not exactly simple, and if you can accomplish something
> without needing to agreeing to new stuff, that reduces coordination
> costs (read; reduces cost of doing business).

I really, really hope we can stay focussed on identifying the components,
connectors, and data that are identified by the BPEL4WS and WSCI specs,
determine which of these are important to cover in a Choregraphy spec, and
write this up in a way that makes a good case to the W3C AC for chartering a
WG to define such a spec.  That's what we've agreed to do at the F2F and in
response to the request for a tighter scope by the WS CG.  Use cases would
definitely help in that effort, and I think the "Definition of Choreography"
thread has gotten some ideas going.

A "devil's advocate" position that this isn't needed is very useful in
sharpening our arguments, and Mark does SUCH a good job at it :-)  Still,
let's not get too distracted by arguing for or against the idea that a
Choreography spec is needed -- we already decided that it is! -- and focus
on defining what exactly the scope of a Choreography WG would be.  When we
have a better handle on that, getting pushback helps us make the case, and
gets the counter-arguments on the record for the AC's use.

To put it another way, I'll feel that we've done our job if we analyze WSCI
and BPEL from the WSA framework, make the best case for a new WG, but the AC
disagrees.  I will NOT feel that we've done our job if we spend the next
month arguing about whether to do the analysis or not and then offer nothing
to help the AC make their decision.

Received on Friday, 18 October 2002 18:12:36 UTC