Re: Definition of Choreography

Champion, Mike wrote:
> 
>...
> 
> For better or worse WSCI uses "choreography" to cover both.  I do agree that
> it's becoming clear that we need to disentangle them. I *personally*  [not
> wearing co-chair hat] am inclined to focus only on the defininition of the
> public interface to choreographed web services (and believe there a majority
> want to include time-based sequencing). As Paul says, some people will want
> to actually implement the choreographed web services in a scripting
> language, some will push for a BPEL-like language, etc.  Just as WSDL just
> specifies the interface to a service and doesn't care how it's implemented,
> something analogous for "choreography" seems like the minimum needed to
> declare victory, at least for the "1.0" version.

I would go further: implementation and interface are just two different 
things and years of experience indicates that keeping them separate is 
better. That separation is a _major_ reason for the whole web services 
program. That will hold true for 1.0, 1.1, 2.0 and 10.0. IMO, the W3C 
should be focused on interface.

  Paul Prescod