This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
The first draft of the proposed Choreography description language contained the definition of three levels of description: abstract, portable and concrete. Personally I had some sympathy with this notion, though it was debated as to how many levels were required and what the precise definition of each should be. As the notion of levels has been removed completely from the current editors draft, I would like to raise an issue on this. Levels or types of Choreography description: I suggest that we should specify at least two levels or types of Choreography description. One level could be called abstract or business process oriented or some such. It would support focus on the definition of the business exchanges. It would specify the allowed sequencing of messages and the nature of each message. It would not have to provide a precise specification (/schema) for each message nor how each message was to be transported. This it would allow agreement of the basic business 'protocol' but would be insufficient to enable interoperability on its own. Another level or type of Choreography description would provide a precise specification and schema for each message and how each message was to be transported. It would thus be a basis for interoperation or at least provide the interoperability specification of the upper layers of the protocol stack.
*** Bug 680 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
12-aug-04 tony to inestigate davi's template proposal and look at current draft
I would like to re-state this issue 662 as follows: "The same choreography can be described at different levels levels of detail. One extreme contains only the minimum of detail to describe the choreography - the basic sequencing of types of messages and could be referred to as abstract or business oriented or some such. This level would be easiest to write by hand and should aid gaining human agreement to the choreography amongst potential participants and other interested parties. Other descriptions of the same choreography could be produced that contain progressively more detail until all the features of the choreography language and other languages it makes use of, particularly the Web Service Description Language, are being used to their fullest extent. This level of detail should aid interoperability of participants implementing this choreography. Thus the issue is to ensure that the Choreography Description Language Schema and specification text support sufficient and appropriate optimality to support the crafting of descriptions of the same choreography at different levels of detail. Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher