cocoon-users mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Ed Staub <>
Subject RE: URL Encoding
Date Thu, 29 Jun 2000 17:22:20 GMT
(Ulrich, forgive me if I put the wrong words in your mouth ...)

I don't think Ulrich is talking about the same kind of "workflow" as that
addressed by the WfMC.  I believe that Ulrich is talking about the ability
to tie together reusable components for production of a presentation of
information, suitable for use in a "real-time" context like a web server.

The meaning of "workflow" being addressed by WfMC is much more
coarse-grained, solving problems involved in coordination of activities
among a community of people and automated agents.  While there is some
conceptual overlap, I don't think Wf-XML and the WfMC reference model are
appropriate for this "workflow" problem space.

(The "w" word gets used in other areas, as well.  I've also seen it used to
denote a flow-chart-like scenario diagram of user actions and dialogs within
a user interface design.)

-Ed Staub

-----Original Message-----
From: Berin Loritsch []
Sent: Thursday, June 29, 2000 12:44 PM
Subject: Re: URL Encoding

Ulrich Mayring wrote:
> In fact, what I meant was that I think it's cool that people begin to
> realize there needs to be a standard way to interface between data and
> logic. The focus here is on STANDARD.

Amen to that!

> When we look at the classic techniques (ASP, ColdFusion, PHP etc.), then
> we find that logic we write in one system cannot be transferred to
> another. This problem needs to be solved on several levels. First, there
> is the programming language level, we have a workable solution here with
> Java. Then there is the data level, we have a pretty good solution here
> with XML. And then, finally, there are a number of "dirty" levels like
> middleware, Application Servers, Web Servers etc. These levels cannot be
> defined rigorously, every business/organisation has different products
> and needs. I call this the workflow level - not much work has been done
> in that area, except perhaps for the invention of buzzwords like EAI.
> So, coming back to what I thought was cool:
> If, say, the W3C were to define a standard way to interface between XML
> and logic (Java, ...), then we really could build taglibs and give them
> to other people, who don't use cocoon. Perhaps some folks want to use
> Enhydra or some wicked Perl script - but the add-on work they do is
> lost. I don't know if this standard interface I am hoping for is
> something like SOAP or if it is XSLT extensions or perhaps even XSP. I
> merely claim that work in this area is cool and needed.
> Ulrich

Tbe W3C's thoughts on this produced the DOM.  The philosophy is that
logic drives the data.  Workflow is the opposite mentality: data drives
the logic.  In that vain, there is a standards body that has defined
something that you are looking for:  The Workflow Management Coalition
(  The WfMC had several XML data
schemas that defined processes and an API for workflow systems.

That may help.

To unsubscribe, e-mail:
For additional commands, e-mail:

View raw message