RE: Choreography: Narrowing Down the Requirements

Unless we want the choreography to do both.  Similar to xslt and xsl fo in
XSL, XLink and XPointer in XML Link, etc.?

Cheers,
Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]]On
> Behalf Of Champion, Mike
> Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 11:28 AM
> To: [email protected]
> Subject: RE: Choreography: Narrowing Down the Requirements
>
>
>
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Hurley, Oisin [mailto:[email protected]]
> > Sent: Thursday, October 31, 2002 12:04 PM
> > To: Champion, Mike; [email protected]
> > Subject: RE: Choreography: Narrowing Down the Requirements
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Fair enough ... We don't want to take sides in the declarative
> vs procedural controversy!  On the other hand, I think we
> have a scoping issue here: are we forming a WG to define an
> "IDL" for choreography that merely constrains the execution
> of a business process, or an actual language that one can
> use to implement it?  That seems to be a fundamental
> requirement issue not a detail that should be left to the
> WG itself.
>
>