- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Sat, 19 Oct 2002 14:32:27 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: Burdett, David [mailto:david.burdett@commerceone.com] > Sent: Friday, October 18, 2002 7:58 PM > To: 'Champion, Mike'; www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: RE: Definition of Choreography > > > > I think this is an important distinction as: > 1. Public processes need to be standardized, private ones do not. > 2. Anything that needs to be standardized should have a > formal way of being > defined as an aid to understanding and therefore interoperability How do people feel about this as a first cut at specifying what subset of WSCI/BPEL should be in scope for the Choreography WG charter? Also, to what extent does "public" equate to "declarative" in reference to our recent discussions? Of course, the "private" part could be described with a declarative language (Prolog, or even XSLT, since it's Turing-complete) but I can't see how a "procedural" definition of a public interface would be useful.
Received on Saturday, 19 October 2002 16:33:05 UTC