I've been thinking about each of the use cases in terms of customization and variability. It might change slightly the boundaries between Customized and Integrated. I wanted to pass on some thoughts and see if what the level of consensus was. Quoted statements come from the minutes. It might seem like I'm jumping the gun a bit on some ideas, but it helps me to have some rough vision of the direction.. Aggregated: No interaction between service and container / portal. This maps to WSRP. The emphasis is more on the producer side. So only minimal customization here, enough to make the embedded site functional in the new container - probably implies link management/interception (it might have some creative use of span tags to aid that). It's device markup that is sent from the producer (the intent being to get maximum leverage of the world's simple sites with minimum effort). Customized: Changing the look and feel through what we called adaptation points before. eg, might want to change the menu bar. I see this one as facilitating much richer customization by the consumer. One suggestion for the customization mechanism is to call multiple setter methods in advance of the service call, etc. My vote would I think be to allow this consumer customization by not sending device markup here but sending some richer XML-based description of the content that can then be interrogated and massaged by the consumer. Maybe this is where X-Forms comes in. Integrated: Data exchanged at a fine-grained level . So customization might be achieved here by the calling of multiple fine-grained methods on the producer who then provides opportunity for choice in the resultset. I'd still argue for descriptive result content which would then accommodate further customization on the consumer side. Note - one thought on scalability: The Customized case with rich data description is probably a more scaleable pattern, since the producers do not need to cater to all preferences of all users of all consumers. The consumers handle the output modification accommodating the desires of their users, the producer does not care. In the Integrated case the producer chooses to provide additional customization (and finer service granularity) through additional methods / setters. There's an implication of session and state in the Integrated case, not necessarily in Customized or Aggregated. Coordinated: In page wiring and aggregation of content from multiple producers into a consolidated view. Argues for the rich content description, allowing the consumer to intelligently wire things together. It might build on Customized and Integrated Use Cases. Orchestrated: time based flow allowing for adaptation of flow on the consumer side. Also builds on Customized and Integrated. So I think in all (except the first) consumer customization is implied, and achieved via a rich data description (and in the Orchestrated case by a flow language too). I think variability (my other main consideration) is probably achieved in all of these cases by the separate issue of having a rich service description (eg, WSDL-based) that allows the consumer to make intelligent decisions about the services he consumes, and also by choosing to omit some service calls, include others, etc. Also, might it be worth renaming the first (simplest) case to something other than Aggregated? Maybe Embedded or some other description that suggests that it's minimal change. Aggregated sounds like a much more value-added case? :-) gr 603.559.1556