RE: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote

[Frank Leymann <LEY1@de.ibm.com>]

+1

There is various work going on on formalizing BPEL. For example, a group at
Humboldt University, Berlin, (under Prof. Reisig) is working on an ASM
semantics for BPEL; they are close to finish (based on BPEL 1.1).  I am
sure that much more work in this space is under way all over the globe.

We should definitively NOT do such kind of work within the TC,

Regards,
Frank







To:    "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>,
       <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
cc:    "Uwe Glaesser" <glaesser@cs.sfu.ca>
Subject:    RE: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote


I agree with the resolution Peter proposed.  Formalisms work is most
interesting in surfacing ambiguities and irregularities in the process of
construction of the formal model rather than in being the primary guide to
interpretation or implementation.  There is a precedent in the development
of the formal semantics of the ITU-T standard SDL-2000.  It is primarily
for this reason that we should encourage the work in this direction.

Professor Uwe Glaesser at Simon Fraser University has been leading one such
effort for BPEL.  Professor Glaesser was also a principal author of the
SDL-2000 formal modelling work.  He and his team may be able to update us
on the latest results of their work on BPEL.

Satish

________________________________

From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
Sent: Fri 2/20/2004 4:00 AM
To: Furniss, Peter; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote


This is perhaps the proposal of the ignorant, since I'm really a biologist
:-), but I was involved with OSI Transaction Processing standard, which had
four more or less equivalent definitions: procedural text; state tables;
Lotos; Estelle.  The two formalisms took up 60% or so of the document, and
were used only be very limited groups. Implementors (such as there were :-(
) used the first two.   I heard of another standard (not in OSI) that
included formalisms and took over seven years to reach completion !


Peter

             -----Original Message-----
             From: Furniss, Peter
             Sent: 20 February 2004 11:20
             To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
             Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote


             Proposal: Close without change to the specification

             Rationale: Although the use and definitions of formalisms can
be useful in understanding and defining a specification, including such in
a formal description as normative in a specification that is also in
natural language and less formal expressions has the drawbacks:

             a) it is a very large effort, and can significantly delay the
completion of the specification
             b) formal specifications tend to be understood only by a few
and many of the subject-area experts will use and think in terms of the
non-formal description, in development of both the specification and
implementations.
             c) if there is conflict between the formal and non-formal
which is to have precedence ?

             Separate formal descriptions of bpel, not included in the
specification and without normative authority are to be encouraged.


To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php
.