RE: [wsbpel-abstract] where is the dividing line?

["Rossomando, Philip" <Philip.Rossomando@unisys.com>]

Monica:

Rather than venture a guess at what you are saying. Could
You elaborate a bit more? I personally don't think the
Limitation should be there but I do think it would be a 
Good idea to as "What must I communicate so that my 
Expectations are understood?"  Where are you going with 
Impact on executable bpel question? I think I agree with
Your last point. If I understand you, you are saying that
What ever we do, we should not preclude the eventual 
Support of other abstraction levels. 

Phil Rossomando
 
Research Director, Technology & Architecture
Unisys Corporation
Unisys Way, B-330
Blue Bell, PA 19424 USA
Philip.rossomando@unisys.com
215-986-3998
FAX 413-0215-2043
 

-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:35 PM
To: Rossomando, Philip
Cc: Martin Chapman; Prasad Yendluri;
wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-abstract] where is the dividing line?

Rossomando, Philip wrote:

> Good observation.. Now the question becomes from whose perspective.
>
> Let's say the SAP perspective. What is it that we would want to send
>
> A perspective partner (i.e., what subset of BPEL EXE) that would be
>
> Enough to say "Here's how to do business with me." Without going
>
> Into the details of implementation. The same would be asked at each
>
> Of the three abstraction levels I identified in an earlier email.
>
mm1: Two points, Phil, is the abstract process use limited only as a 
guide to the perspective partner? What about the impact to the 
executable process? As for the multiple abstraction levels, suggest we 
take a pragmatic approach to enable implementation yet not provide a 
barrier to entry. Thanks.