[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Subject: RE: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: Web ServicesChoreography Working Group Proposal]
Just keeping this to the btp list for the moment.
There are certainly some interesting concepts in BTP that are relevant
to the charter, and I would
expect those interested in promoting the concepts to participate. Just
because it is not mentioned
in the charter (for which is almost impossible to be fully inclusive)
doesn't mean or imply that it
can't be brought to the table. I would like to point out that the
charter states that the group, if
formed, expects to kick-off with a workshop where interested parties can
present their positions on this topic.
One thing that I would like clarification on is the following statement:
Stifling the experimentation will result in a weaker standard in
an
area essential for the use of web services for core business.
Who is stifling what?
Martin.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: William Z Pope [mailto:zpope@pobox.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 7:38 AM
> To: Martin Chapman; patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org
> Cc: tab@lists.oasis-open.org; karl.best@oasis-open.org;
> business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Jeff
> Mischkinsky'; 'Don Deutsch'
> Subject: RE: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for
> Review: Web Services Choreography Working Group Proposal]
>
>
>
> Martin,
> I believe that you are selling BTP short.
>
> The technology spelled out in the BTP committee specification
> is designed to provide the underpinnings of an orchestration
> service. You'll see many of the same ideas such as passing
> context to establish linkage between requests to disparate
> services, detection of element failures, and selection of
> alternate routes through an application choreography.
>
> The BTP TC consciously avoided tackling the
> choreography/orchestration service for a number of reasons.
> a) getting the transactional capabilities right was a large
> enough problem (I would point out the inadequacies of the
> WS-Transaction specification as a prima facia example of this).
> b) The level of industry experience with choreography of
> loosely coupled
> systems made standardization premature. In my view the
> ability to perform
> coordination of application elements was seen by the BTP TC
> as the outcome of our work.
>
> The introduction, expansion, and development of the novel
> concept of cohesions as an integral part of the BTP committee
> specification is a strong indication of this intent. This
> feature only makes sense when viewed as part of a system that
> is being run by business rules, regardless of how the rules
> are captured. I believe inclusion of BTP in a standard
> system for application choreography will allow parallel
> development of a useful standard at the same time
> experimentation is occuring. Stifling the experimentation
> will result in a weaker standard in an area essential for the
> use of web services for core business.
>
> Best Regards,
> =bill
>
> William Z Pope Bill.Pope@Choreology.com
> Choreology Ltd Mobile: +1 603 502 4490
> Director of Product Management Office: +44 20 7670 1679
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:05 AM
> To: patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org
> Cc: tab@lists.oasis-open.org; karl.best@oasis-open.org;
> business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org; 'Jeff
> Mischkinsky'; 'Don Deutsch'
> Subject: RE: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for
> Review: Web Services Choreography Working Group Proposal]
>
>
> Patrick,
>
> I was involved in drafting this charter, and thus would like
> to comment on your email. The goal of the proposed new work
> group is to define choreography/orchestration language(s)
> within a Web services specific context. It is not the
> intention of the proposed group to define transaction
> mechanisms, as noted in the out-of-scope section of the charter:
>
> It is obvious that transactions, security, reliability,
> availability, and other such
> qualities are intimately related with Web service
> choreography, some more than others.
> It is not the goal of this group to define these
> mechanisms, but it must clearly
> articulate the boundaries.
>
> In drafting the charter, it was not our intention to
> emphasize WS-Transactions (as opposed to BTP), and was
> mentioned in passing only because of its close association
> with BEPL4WS, given the fact that these documents were
> released as a package.
>
> Finally, I would like to point out that of more direct
> relevance to this charter is ebxml, especially BPSS, and this
> has been explicitly called out in the charter, along with a
> need to liaise with OASIS.
>
> Cheers,
> Martin.
>
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Karl Best [mailto:karl.best@oasis-open.org]
> > Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 5:21 AM
> > To: business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org
> > Subject: [business-transaction] [Fwd: FW: Call for Review: Web
> > Services Choreography Working Group Proposal]
> >
> >
> > BTP TC:
> >
> > OASIS would like your input regarding proposed upcoming
> activities at
> > W3C. Please respond to Patrick and myself as suggested by Patrick's
> > message.
> >
> > -Karl
> >
> >
> > -------- Original Message --------
> > Subject: FW: Call for Review: Web Services Choreography
> Working Group
> > Proposal
> > Date: Thu, 14 Nov 2002 17:14:03 -0500
> > From: "Patrick Gannon" <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org>
> > To: "Karl Best" <karl.best@oasis-open.org>
> > CC: "OASIS TAB" <tab@lists.oasis-open.org>
> >
> > Karl,
> >
> > Please forward this W3C CfR to the BTP TC, requesting them
> to provide
> > a response to OASIS management within 2 weeks. I would
> like to see a
> > listing of and specific portions of the BTP Specification
> that cover
> > work items, deliverables or other specific topics noted
> within the WSC
> > WG Scope of Work.
> >
> > As a W3C member, I plan to file a response on behalf of OASIS.
> >
> > Upon initial review of this CfR (and without benefit of closer
> > examination), I am disturbed by the lack of research that the
> > organizers of this new WSC WG have done on other relevant
> work. Their
> > is NO mention of the OASIS BTP TC work and no listing of a
> liaison to
> > OASIS to coordinate their proposed new work with relevant work that
> > has gone on at OASIS over the past 22 months in the BTP TC.
> >
> > Thanks,
> >
> > Patrick Gannon
> > President & CEO
> > OASIS
> > PO Box 455, Billerica, MA 01821
> > +1-978-667-5115 x201 (Office)
> > +1-408-242-1018 (Mobile)
> > +1-978-667-5114 (Fax)
> > patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org
> > http://www.oasis-open.org
> > http://www.xml.org
> > http://xml.coverpages.org/
> > http://www.ebxml.org
> > http://www.legalxml.org
> > http://www.uddi.org
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: w3c-ac-members-request@w3.org
> > [mailto:w3c-ac-members-request@w3.org]On Behalf Of Susan Lesch
> > Sent: Tuesday, November 12, 2002 11:54 PM
> > To: w3c-ac-members@w3.org
> > Cc: cmsmcq@w3.org; hugo@w3.org
> > Subject: Call for Review: Web Services Choreography Working Group
> > Proposal
> >
> >
> >
> > Dear Advisory Committee representative,
> >
> > This is a call for review of a proposal to modify the Web Services
> > Activity and create a Web Services Choreography Working
> Group as part
> > of the existing Web Services Activity.
> >
> > The charter of the proposed Working Group can be found at:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/11/chor-proposal
> >
> > If you have any questions or need further information,
> please contact
> > Hugo Haas, Web Services Activity Lead at <hugo@w3.org>, or C. M.
> > Sperberg-McQueen, Architecture Domain Leader at <cmsmcq@w3.org>.
> >
> > Thank you,
> >
> > for Tim Berners-Lee, W3C Director;
> > Hugo Haas, W3C Web Services Activity Lead and
> > Susan Lesch, for the W3C Communications Team
> >
> >
> > ----------------
> > Activity Summary
> > ----------------
> >
> > The Web Services Activity statement is:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/Activity
> >
> > As described there, new work in the Web Services Activity is to be
> > started on the basis of work by the Web Services
> Architecture Working
> > Group.
> >
> > A Web Services Choreography Working Group is proposed to
> address the
> > following problem:
> >
> > | Existing specifications for Web services describe the
> indivisible
> > | units of atomic interactions. It has become clear that
> taking the
> > | next step in the development of Web services will require the
> > | ability to compose and describe the relationships between atomic
> > | services. Although differing terminology is used in the
> industry,
> > | such as orchestration, collaboration, coordination,
> conversations,
> > | etc., the terms all share a common characteristic of describing
> > | linkages and usage patterns between Web services. For
> the purpose
> > | of this document, and without prejudice, we use the term
> > | choreography as a label to denote this space.
> > |
> > | [..]
> > |
> > | The Web Services Choreography Working Group, part of the
> > Web Services
> > | Activity, is chartered to create the definition of a
> choreography,
> > | language(s) for describing a choreography, as well as the
> > rules for
> > | composition of, and interaction among, such choreographed Web
> > | services. The language(s) should build upon the
> > foundation of the Web
> > | Service Description Language 1.2 (WSDL 1.2).
> >
> > -- Proposal for Web Services Choreography Working Group Charter
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/11/chor-proposal#scope
> >
> > In order to guarantee the broadest possible grounding for
> the work of
> > the Working Group, the first face-to-face meeting is
> proposed to be in
> > the form of an open forum with presentations to the Working
> Group of
> > relevant technologies listed in the charter.
> >
> >
> > ----------------------
> > Context and Motivation
> > ----------------------
> >
> > The Web Services Architecture Working Group has considered
> > choreography since the group's inception. Discussion grew
> as various
> > proposals were published and considered:
> >
> > - In February 2002, W3C received the WSCL Submission
> > (http://www.w3.org/Submission/2002/02/) from Hewlett-Packard
> > Company, drawing attention to the choreography area.
> >
> > - In June 2002, W3C received the WSCI Submission
> > (http://www.w3.org/Submission/2002/04/) from BEA Systems,
> > BPMI.org,
> > Commerce One, Fujitsu Limited, Intalio, IONA, Oracle
> Corporation,
> > SAP AG, SeeBeyond Technology Corporation and Sun Microsystems,
> > asking the creation of a Web Services Choreography
> Working Group.
> >
> > In response, the W3C Team asked the Web Services
> Architecture Working
> > Group to review the Submission.
> >
> > At the beginning of August 2002, another set of proposals (BPEL4WS,
> > WS-Coordination, WS-Transaction) was released by BEA
> Systems, IBM and
> > Microsoft.
> >
> > At the Working Group's 11-13 September 2002 face-to-face
> meeting, the
> > Working Group agreed unanimously that, due to the proliferation of
> > proposals, work on choreography should happen soon in a open
> > environment:
> >
> > | The WSA WG is committed to the creation an open common Web
> > Services
> > | architecture where customers, developers, and IT vendors build
> > | solutions together--an architecture that takes the principles of
> > | interoperability, vendor-independence, and openness into account.
> > |
> > | It has become clear that a critical next step in the
> evolution of
> > | Web services will be the ability to compose and describe the
> > | relationships between Web services to support stateful,
> > long-running
> > | interactions. Although differing terminology is used in
> > the industry,
> > | such as orchestration, collaboration, coordination,
> conversations,
> > | etc., the terms all share a common characteristic of describing
> > | linkages and usage patterns between web services. For this
> > purpose,
> > | and without prejudice, we use the term choreography.
> > |
> > | The WSA WG encourages the formation of an open, industry-wide
> > | working group with the aim of developing interoperable and
> > open Web
> > | services standard(s) that support stateful, long-running
> > | interactions.
> >
> > -- Web Services Architecture Working Group: 11-13 September 2002
> > face-to-face minutes
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/arch/2/09/f2f-minutes
> >
> > After further consideration, the Working Group decided (17 to 1 in
> > favor, with 8 abstentions) to request the formal chartering of a
> > Working Group on choreography specifically at W3C.
> >
> > The Web Services Architecture Working Group expressed the
> motivation
> > for such work:
> >
> > | WSDL has proved very useful for describing a single service.
> > | Currently complex natural language describing the
> > obligations of the
> > | participants detailing how to use a service (sequencing, state
> > | management, etc.) have to accompany a WSDL description.
> > The next step
> > | is to partially replace these somewhat imprecise
> instructions with
> > | precise language. This will simplify the daunting task
> > companies now
> > | face when trying to use web services to integrate their business
> > | processes. In a B2B context such a specification could
> reduce the
> > | cost of integrating with new trading partners and responding to
> > | changes in existing interfaces. As well, creating a
> > standard language
> > | to describe the relationships between document exchanges will be
> > | helpful to other standards bodies, such as RosettaNet or
> > CIDX, giving
> > | them a standard infrastructure for message choreography
> > and enabling
> > | them to focus on the core competencies relevant to their domain.
> >
> > -- Proposal for Web Services Choreography Working Group Charter
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/11/chor-proposal#scope
> >
> > The W3C Director recognizes the importance of this work for Web
> > services and is therefore presenting this charter for your
> > consideration.
> >
> > It is believed that the Web Services Architecture Working Group has
> > framed the work enough for experts in this area to continue the
> > discussion inside this new proposed W3C Working Group.
> >
> > The Web Services Architecture Working Group identified BPEL4WS and
> > WSCI as important inputs for the proposed work. As per the request
> > from the Web Services Architecture Working Group and the
> Web Services
> > Coordination Group, the W3C Management Team has been
> approaching the
> > main stakeholders in this area to try and guarantee their
> > participation in this effort. While WSCI was submitted to W3C, the
> > authors of BPEL4WS have not made the specification
> available to W3C to
> > work on yet.
> >
> >
> > --------------------------------
> > Activity Structure and Resources
> > --------------------------------
> >
> > W3C will allocate 0.6 full-time equivalent engineers to the Working
> > Group. Yves Lafon will be the W3C Team Contact for this
> Working Group.
> > Hugo Haas will be the Alternate Team Contact.
> >
> > The W3C Team is in the process of evaluating candidates for
> chairing
> > the Web Services Choreography Working Group. Proposals for
> additional
> > candidates are welcome, and should be sent to Michael
> Sperberg-McQueen
> > <cmsmcq@w3.org>, Yves Lafon <ylafon@w3.org> and Hugo Haas
> > <hugo@w3.org>.
> >
> >
> > ---------------------
> > Intellectual Property
> > ---------------------
> >
> > As with all Working Groups under the Web Services Activity, the
> > proposed Web Services Choreography Working Group will operate in a
> > Royalty-Free mode, as defined in the W3C Current Patent Practice:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124
> >
> >
> > -----------------------------------------
> > Proposed Changes to Web Services Activity
> > -----------------------------------------
> >
> > This proposal to modify the Web Services Activity
> >
> > Web Services Activity
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/ws/
> >
> > to include a Web Services Choreography Working Group follows the
> > guidelines of sections 3.3 and 4.2.1 of the W3C Process Document:
> >
> > 3.3 Activity Proposals
> > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/activities.html#
> > BPCreation
> > 4.2.1 Working Group and Interest Group Creation and Modification
> > http://www.w3.org/Consortium/Process-20010719/groups#WGCreation
> >
> >
> > ----------------------------
> > Review Form and Instructions
> > ----------------------------
> >
> > This call for review includes a call for participation. Should the
> > final version of the charter be significantly different as
> a result of
> > this review, the W3C Team will treat the participation
> commitments as
> > provisional.
> >
> > In the discussions about how to proceed with this work,
> some Members
> > suggested that further preparatory work should be done before
> > chartering the Working Group. In the response form below, this
> > possibility has been called out separately: in addition to
> supporting
> > the idea or being opposed to it, you can express the view that W3C
> > should definitely work in this area, but that the work should be
> > started only in a few months, after some additional
> preparation work
> > that you can specify.
> >
> > 1. Preparation. Please review the proposed charter:
> >
> > http://www.w3.org/2002/11/chor-proposal
> >
> > 2. Deadline. Your review must be received before:
> >
> > 24:00 UTC 12 December 2002
> >
> > The Director expects to announce the results of the review
> within two
> > weeks after the deadline. The Director will keep the Advisory
> > Committee informed if additional time for consideration is required.
> >
> > 3. Where to send your review.
> >
> > Replies to this proposal must be sent to:
> >
> > team-ws-chor-review@w3.org
> >
> > The W3C Team encourages Advisory Committee representatives to send
> > their reply both to the review list <team-ws-chor-review@w3.org>,
> > which is Team-confidential, and to the AC forum
> <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>,
> > which is Member-readable, in order to foster discussions
> around this
> > proposal.
> >
> > FORM BEGINS
> >
> > I, ____________________ ,
> >
> > W3C Advisory Committee Representative of
> >
> > [name of Member organization]
> >
> > available via electronic mail at:
> >
> > [AC representative email address]
> >
> > provide the following advice as to this proposal to
> > modify the Web Services Activity:
> >
> > ( ) My organization agrees that W3C should proceed as proposed.
> >
> > ( ) My organization agrees that W3C should add a Web Services
> > Choreography Working Group to the Web Services Activity, but
> > requests the following changes:
> >
> > (Optional) We would like the following additional preparation
> > work to take place:
> >
> > ( ) My organization requests the following critical changes.
> > The Working Group should not be added without these changes:
> >
> > ( ) My organization requests that W3C not change this Activity
> > at all. Our reasoning is:
> >
> > By default, the disposition of reviews will show the origin of the
> > comments. If you want your review to be anonymized, please check the
> > following:
> >
> > [ ] My organization wishes to keep its comments anonymous.
> >
> > Note: if you don't want your comments to be kept anonymous, the
> > W3C
> > Team encourages you to send this review to <w3c-ac-forum@w3.org>
> > also.
> >
> > Should this proposal be approved, we propose the following
> > participant(s) for the Web Services Choreography Working Group:
> >
> > Participant 1:
> > Given Name . . . :
> > Family Name . . :
> > E-mail Address . :
> > Telephone Number :
> > Employer . . . . :
> >
> > Participant 2:
> > Given Name . . . :
> > Family Name . . :
> > E-mail Address . :
> > Telephone Number :
> > Employer . . . . :
> >
> > We understand the level of commitment as outlined in the
> > Charter. We are willing to commit to this, and
> support him or
> > her
> > with the requisite travel and other expenses
> related to the
> > work
> > in the working group.
> >
> > Intellectual Property Rights (please choose one)
> >
> > The definitions of Royalty-Free and reasonable and
> > non-discriminatory terms below are the ones from the Current
> > Patent Practice of 24 January 2002:
> >
> >
> >
> http://www.w3.org/TR/2002/NOTE-patent-practice-20020124#sec-Definition
> >
> > [ ] To the best of my personal knowledge, my organization has no
> > essential patents.
> >
> > or
> >
> > [ ] My organization has patents that may be essential.
> > List of those patents . . . . :
> >
> > We agree to license them:
> >
> > [ ] on Royalty-Free terms to all implementers,
> whether or not
> > they are Members of W3C.
> >
> > or
> >
> > [ ] on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
> >
> > In this case, please send an email to
> <patent-issues@w3.org>
> > as
> > per the W3C Process including your complete IPR declaration.
> >
> > or
> >
> > [ ] My organization may or may not have essential patents.
> >
> > If we do, we agree to license them:
> >
> > [ ] on Royalty-Free terms to all implementers,
> whether or not
> > they are Members of W3C.
> >
> > or
> >
> > [ ] on reasonable and non-discriminatory terms.
> >
> > In this case, please send an email to
> <patent-issues@w3.org>
> > as
> > per the W3C Process including your complete IPR declaration.
> >
> > Note that each intellectual property disclosure is
> expected to be
> > made public with each Working Draft published by the Working
> > Group.
> > If you would like to keep this disclosure Member-confidential,
> > please check the following:
> >
> > [ ] We wish to keep our intellectual property declaration
> > Member-confidential.
> >
> > Other items to be considered by the W3C Director:
> >
> > FORM ENDS
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------
> To subscribe or unsubscribe from this elist use the subscription
> manager: <http://lists.oasis-open.org/ob/adm.pl>
>
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]
Powered by eList eXpress LLC