Re: Definition of Choreography

Ok, if the WG is still convinced that this is needed, despite the
growing number of people questioning it, I guess there's not much
more I can say.

... except, please stand well back when this house of cards comes
crashing to the ground. 8-)

MB

On Fri, Oct 18, 2002 at 04:12:03PM -0600, Champion, Mike wrote:
> 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.

-- 
Mark Baker, CTO, Idokorro Mobile.  Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA.
http://www.markbaker.ca             http://www.idokorro.com