RE: Choreography: Narrowing Down the Requirements

Hi all,
Been watching the threads, but haven't rowed in yet...

>Thanks Jeff, it's good that we're getting more concrete.

Indeed - this is a very good start and maybe we can move
it forward to reduce the amount of ratholes, etc that 
can be visited. One thing that is very clear to me 
is that what we really want to do is make a crisp set
of features (at a moderately high level) that can
give direction to a group of people that will then
spend their time haggling over the actual details.

>Clarification: are we talking about a specification that defines
>the external interface only, or more like "option 3" on my 
>summary yesterday: an executable language with a narrower scope
>than BPEL4WS?
 
For example, I think that this particular call for 
clarification is at too fine-grained a level for the 
content of a charter. It does look like a scoping call
for sure, but look at the language - 'interface',
'executable language' - these are means to an end, not
the end itself. The charter needs to scope the ends and
not prejudice the means. BTW this is not a criticism
of the question, I've just been through a number of 
AC charter discussions before :)

 best regards
  Oisin