Re: [wsbpel] Example for how compensation relates to WS-T (BA)

[Assaf Arkin <arkin@intalio.com>]

Satish Thatte wrote:

>These are all great questions.  Let us start with interoperability,
>before we sink into the morass of minimality ;-)
>
>I believe that a combination of abstract processes with WSDL (1.1 or
>1.2) should provide an elementary level of predictability of external
>behavior that I would characterize as the focus of interoperability.
>Here we need to find some way (including another dependency) to address
>issues regarding policies for reliability and security, among others,
>although the protocols required are defined elsewhere.
>
+1

One of the issues we have is the need to introduce some minimal set of 
policies that would be defined as part of the process/abstract/interface 
to ensure interoperability. That ties to the other questions on my list.

>For both executable processes and abstract processes, we will need an
>operational semantics that unambiguously defined behavior without
>relying on interpretations of the English text in the spec.  This is the
>other side of predictability, not of externally facing behavior but of
>executable behavior.
>
+1

BTW do we have an issues process so we can start raising issues agains 
the spec and track them?

arkin

>
>Satish
>  
>