[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-abstract] Modification of Sally's document from Tony
Tony Fletcher wrote: > Dear Colleagues, > > I have just added my thoughts for requirements on Abstract BPEL at the > end of Sally's document mm1: Tony, when you indicate you could go from a messaging sequence diagram to an abstract process, this is only related to the view of the party correct? You also indicated in your paper that the abstract process would allow hiding. Reference: <<<It must be possible to have an abstract BPEL process that only uses some, or none, of the optional language features. An abstract BPEL process designer is able to add or omit detail as they please, limited only by the features of the language.>>> Are we to infer then that we have a minimum set of core mandatory language features in the abstract process? Would that assist us in helping to ensure conformance (not compliance) [1] and/or compatibility with the executable process? One more point, on your target audience, I am uncertain if a business process expert would be involved with abstract BPEL. The target audience, I believe begins with the architects you listed. [1] Loaded term with implications for software
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]