Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - Some proposed wording

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

Please see below

Trickovic, Ivana wrote:

> 
> 
> Yaron,
> 
> I have a few more comments/questions.
> 
> The proposal introduces a new value for attribute abstractProcess which 
> is not consistent with the current semantics of that attribute. We have 
> in BPEL a clear "process taxonomy" and "abstract process fragment" does 
> not really fit in with it.
> 
In what way does an abstract process fragment fail to fit in with BPEL's 
process taxonomy?

> In addition, value "abstract process fragment" seems redundant (or at 
> least the language will be overloaded). The purpose of that value is to 
> be able to double-check an abstract process definition.
> 
For the identification of an abstract process as a fragment to be 
redundant the information must have previously been made available 
elsewhere in the BPEL processing model. Could you please identify where 
that was?

> Would you clarify the relationship between this proposal and your 
> proposal for issue 107?
> 
I intended my proposal to remove some ambiguities in the semantics of a 
BPEL process that the original proposal introduced.

> Regards,
> 
> Ivana
> 

	Thanks,
			Yaron

>  > -----Original Message-----
>  > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
>  > Sent: Montag, 10. Mai 2004 22:39
>  > To: Trickovic, Ivana
>  > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>  > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - Some proposed wording
>  >
>  >
>  > The only syntactic difference is that an abstract process
>  > MUST contain
>  > one or more start activities and an abstract process fragment
>  > MUST NOT
>  > contain any start activities.
>  >
>  > The purpose of creating the distinction is to prevent
>  > misunderstandings.
>  > If one is given an abstract process definition without a
>  > start activity
>  > and if the abstract process fragment identifier isn't
>  > available then one
>  > must always wonder 'is this abstract process schema invalid
>  > or did they
>  > mean to leave out a start activity'? By introducing an
>  > explicit switch
>  > we remove the ambiguity.
>  >
>  >       Yaron
>  >
>  > Trickovic, Ivana wrote:
>  >
>  > >
>  > >
>  > > Yaron,
>  > >
>  > > Would you please explain the difference between abstract
>  > processes and
>  > > abstract process fragments (except syntactical difference: abstract
>  > > processes must contain at least one "starting activity")?
>  > What would be
>  > > the semantics of abstract process fragments? What are use cases?
>  > >
>  > > Thanks,
>  > >
>  > > Ivana
>  > >
>  > >  > -----Original Message-----
>  > >  > From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
>  > >  > Sent: Donnerstag, 6. Mai 2004 01:46
>  > >  > To: wsbpeltc
>  > >  > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - Some proposed wording
>  > >  >
>  > >  >
>  > >  > I am thinking of putting the following up for vote as a
>  > resolution to
>  > >  > issue 99. What do y'all think?
>  > >  >
>  > >  >       Yaron
>  > >  >
>  > >  > The introductory sentence in section 15 shall be amended to
>  > >  > read "These
>  > >  > are extensions for the business protocol usage pattern."
>  > >  >
>  > >  > The following text or a variant adopted at the discretion of the
>  > >  > editor's group which only differs in non-normative ways
>  > where changes
>  > >  > are made for editorial purposes shall be inserted into
>  > section 15:
>  > >  >
>  > >  > ------------------------------
>  > >  >
>  > >  > 15.X Abstract Process Fragments
>  > >  >
>  > >  > An abstract process that chooses not to specify how it is
>  > >  > initiated is
>  > >  > referred to as an abstract process fragment. An abstract process
>  > >  > fragment follows all the same syntactic and semantic
>  > rules as other
>  > >  > abstract processes with the exception that they do not
>  > >  > specify how they
>  > >  > are initiated and therefore do not contain start activities.
>  > >  > An abstract
>  > >  > process fragment MUST set the value of the abstractProcess
>  > >  > attribute on
>  > >  > the process element to 'abstactFragment'. If an abstract
>  > process does
>  > >  > not contain start activities and the abstractProcess
>  > >  > attribute value is
>  > >  > not set to 'abstractFragment' then the abstract process
>  > definition is
>  > >  > invalid.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > ------------------------------
>  > >  >
>  > >  > The first reference to the abstractProcess attribute in
>  > section 6.2
>  > >  > shall be amended to include the option
>  > 'abstractFragment'. The second
>  > >  > reference shall be amended to read 'This attribute specifies
>  > >  > whether the
>  > >  > process being defined is abstract, an abstract fragment or
>  > >  > executable.
>  > >  > The default for this attribute is "no".'
>  > >  >
>  > >  > The definition of the abstractProcess attribute in the schema
>  > >  > shall be
>  > >  > changed so as to allow for the values of 'yes', 'no' and
>  > >  > 'abstractFragment'.
>  > >  >
>  > >  > 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/le
>  > >  > ave_workgroup.php.
>  > >  >
>  > >
>  >
>