OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

business-transaction message

[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]


> I think we disagree an the amount of transactionality needed for
> an orchestration service, that's ok, though it might be the crux of
> this discussion.

I think some orchestrations do require transactionality, but to require it
for all is not the right approach IMO. A base orchestration service that
does not provide transactions (whatever "transactions" might mean at that
level) but can be augmented with them is far better and for more likely to
achieve traction.

> My goal in the BTP TC was to establish an extended
> standard vocabulary of actions, beyond request/response that allowed
> an orchestration to do things that aren't possible or are inefficient
> in existing workflow systems.  I don't think your experience
> contradicts that or the need for that.

If you don't have a workflow system then cohesions is a good starting point.

> Going into the TC I didn't
> expect the outcome to be based on 2-phase interaction, but that turned
> out to be a good solution for a variety of reasons, not least of which
> being it is a well understood pattern even when the semantic guarantees
> of that pattern are changed, as done in BTP.  I would very much like
> to see the discussion within the choreography work group include the
> affect that related operations and cohesions can have on business
> interactions.

I think that anything with a transactions look-and-feel should be deferred
until there is a real foundation on which to build. When that happens,
cohesions and anything else are definitely worthy of inclusion.

Mark.

>
> Regards,
> =bill
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mark Little [mailto:m.c.little@ncl.ac.uk]
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 5:11 PM
> To: zpope@pobox.com; 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]
>
>
> Bill, as has already been pointed out, I think the mention of WS-Tx here
is
> misleading IMO. Certainly if transactional choreography is to be
considered
> by this working group then WS-Tx and BTP (and presumably THP since it is a
> W3C note) should be taken into account. However,
choreography/orchestration
> does not equate to transactionality and definitely does not require
> something like BTP (or WS-Tx).
>
> In my experience both when working inside HP and outside,
non-transactional
> process-flow/work-flow can be accomplished without a two-phase
transactional
> protocol as both BTP and WS-Tx atomic transactions require. To say that
BTP
> was designed as the basis for a general orchestration service is
incorrect:
> it would be more accurate to say that it could be used as the basis of
> transactional orchestration, which I think is important but not an initial
> step for an new working group to consider.
>
> This is a slight divergence, but within HP we found that if you had an
> existing workflow system and wanted transactional workflows then atoms
were
> more than enough and cohesions didn't give you anything you didn't already
> have from the workflow system.
>
> All the best,
>
> Mark.
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "William Z Pope" <zpope@pobox.com>
> To: "Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>;
> <patrick.gannon@oasis-open.org>
> Cc: <tab@lists.oasis-open.org>; <karl.best@oasis-open.org>;
> <business-transaction@lists.oasis-open.org>; "'Jeff Mischkinsky'"
> <jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com>; "'Don Deutsch'" <donald.deutsch@oracle.com>
> Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 10:38 AM
> 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