- From: Champion, Mike <Mike.Champion@SoftwareAG-USA.com>
- Date: Mon, 21 Oct 2002 15:09:35 -0600
- To: www-ws-arch@w3.org
> -----Original Message----- > From: David Orchard [mailto:dorchard@bea.com] > Sent: Monday, October 21, 2002 3:29 PM > To: www-ws-arch@w3.org > Subject: Stop the Choreography Definition insanity! > > > 2. We need actual discussion of REQUIREMENTS, with proposed > suggestions. One thing that I *think* the discussion has pointed to is a need to disentangle the public/declarative/interface definition of a choreography from the language used to implement it. Would you disagree? Does the W3C choreography language need to cover both the declaration and execution aspects? > > 4. if this group decides that it > wants to re-invent choregraphy languages from ground up with n inputs, it will > be a total waste of time. Simply put, a number of companies are not prepared > to go through the reinvent the wheel exercise again. Are you suggesting that one of the input choreography languages is more or less done (well, at least as "done" as WSDL 1.1 was when submitted to the W3C) and the new WG should be chartered to profile and polish it? Or in the context of the previous question, maybe we should take either the intersection or union of the requirements covered by WSCI and BPEL, and add some requirements that the new WG more cleanly separate the interface declaration from the execution language? Personally, I thought the problem was that there were a bunch of wobbly wheels that have been invented, and that the W3C WS Choreography WG was needed to invent a simple but steady wheel based on what we've learned from the previous efforts :-)
Received on Monday, 21 October 2002 17:15:38 UTC