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]


Bill,

The proposed Choreography WG has not been stifled, just focused on a solvable description problem.  In this description domain, the wire protocols WS-Transaction and BTP may have an impact and require reference.  However, that's very distinct from either being an explicit input for the proposed group.

Scope is a very important issue and deciding certain things are out of scope for an immediate work item should not be taken as stifling.

thanx,
    doug

William Z Pope wrote:
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