RE: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine (was: Implicit <sequence> macro)

["Tony Andrews" <tandrews@microsoft.com>]

I expect we'll see more and more automatic analysis of abstract BPEL
processes over time. This is already becoming a topic of interest in the
research community. Of course it will be important for humans to
understand these processes, but their usage won't be limited to that.

Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de] 
> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 10:24 AM
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] implicite links of the runtime engine 
> (was: Implicit <sequence> macro)
> 
> Hello Maciej,
> 
> > I'd argue that the distinction between executable and abstract is 
> > really quite small. Both executable and abstract process will be 
> > "executed", either by a "real" machine implementing the physical 
> > side-effects of the reductions implied by the process definition in 
> > the context of the physical environment, or by a machine 
> that attempts 
> > to determine the bisimilarity of two BPEL processes. 
> Consequently, I see the value of constructs such as 
> "sequence" to be unaffected by the abstractness of the process.
> 
> Well, the target audience is creatly different. The abstract 
> process is more often used as a mean of communicating between 
> business partners to set up the process. This means, it will 
> be analysed and "parsed" by humans (with tools support). It 
> should contain rationale and easy to understand patterns.
> 
> This is more relevant for the requirements discussion (add 
> documentation, versioning, derivation support), but it also 
> may be a an reason for keep sequences: it is used to express 
> the intention of the modeler to other humans, not the sematic 
> of the process to the engine.
> 
> Greetings
> Bernd
> --
> www.seeburger.com
>