OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote


Gentlemen,

    I am thrilled to hear that formal modelling work is being done. That 
professors Reisig and Glaesser are involved is even better.

    Should we not take advantage of these good works, and ensure that, 
as Satish points out, any problems uncovered are addressed by the 
specification? Also, can we ensure that a formal model of WS-BPEL (as 
distinct from BPEL4WS 1.1) is generated before the specification is 
finalized? (I'm not suggesting the TC does this work, but it is an 
important validation step.)

    A formal model will also help clarify the semantics of the language 
we are standardizing. Should it not be a part of the final specification?

    Finally, where and when will these formal models be published?

Cheers,
-Ron

Frank Leymann wrote:

>+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
>.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>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.
>
>  
>




[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]