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] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested


Dannys observation also applies to the 2-party case. It is not very helpfull for external partners to publish your own process. If they want to interface with you, the need the Abstract representation of the Process they have to implement. Of course publishing your opwn process abstrac makes sense in other situations like sharing your engeneering efford.

I totally agree that this TN should wait of the outcome of the abstract subgroup and the abstrac subgroup should use the "publish in uddi" as a major usecase.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de


-----Original Message-----
From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com]
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:27 PM
To: Danny van der Rijn
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec
TC Technical Note - Review Requested






I don't think Bernd's use case assumes a multiparty scenario. The TN seems
to cover reasonably well the 2 party case; it also seems reasonable to
start with that simple case (since almost everyone understands it) but
eventually we'll want to figure out whether or when a multiparty BPEL would
need to be registered in UDDI.

Paco



                                                                                                                                        
                      Danny van der                                                                                                     
                      Rijn                     To:       wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org                                                    
                      <dannyv@tibco.com        cc:                                                                                      
                      >                        Subject:  Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical   
                                                Note - Review Requested                                                                 
                      08/05/2004 04:19                                                                                                  
                      PM                                                                                                                
                                                                                                                                        




i agree with the sentiment of your note, bernd.  however, according to my
reading of the TN, that (multi-party) usage isn't covered.  what the travel
agency can register is the abstract BPEL that describes THEIR OWN behavior,
and not a "you implement this" abstract BPEL.

danny
----- Original Message -----
From: Eckenfels. Bernd
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:54 AM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC
Technical Note - Review Requested

Hello Danny,

for a service provider (i.e. TravelAgency) it makes sense to publish an
abstract BPEL PRocess which describes as a template how a Process of a
TravelAgent has to look like. AbstractBPEL cannot describe the observal
overall process, but it can describe in an abstract way the exepcted
sequence of invocations (and therefore also the offered ports).

I think the UDDI TN is nearly compelte in that respect, only the wording
"observal state" needs to be changed.

Also I wonder if the Process Local Name needs to have its own attribut in
the tModel/Bag, but I am not very familiar with UDDI.

Mit freundlichen Grüßen
Bernd Eckenfels
Chief Architect
--
SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany
Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256
mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de
      -----Original Message-----
      From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
      Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:52 PM
      To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
      Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI
      Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested

      as i said in conference today, i am afraid that the UDDI TC is even
      more confused about what Abstract BPEL is than we are.  other than
      pointing out even more strongly the importance of getting our
      definition of Abstract BPEL pinned down, i think that this note
      should lead us in 2 directions:

      1) finding out why someone would want to register an Abstract BPEL
      with UDDI.
      2) changing the name of Abstract BPEL.  this is not the first time
      i've seen someone confuse the relationship between Abstract BPEL and
      Executable BPEL to conflate it with the relationship between Abstract
      WSDL and Concrete WSDL, and unless we change the name, i'm sure it
      won't be the last.

      i admit, i haven't read the UDDI proposal referenced in this note,
      but i feel pretty safe in my assumption without having read it.

      danny
       ----- Original Message -----
       From: Luc Clement
       To: drj@us.ibm.com ; jevdemon@microsoft.com
       Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org ; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org ;
       Karl F. Best ; James Bryce Clark ; Mary McRae ; Tony Rogers
       Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:58 PM
       Subject: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec
       TC Technical Note - Review Requested

       Dear WSBPEL Chairs,
       The UDDI Spec TC has been working on a "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI
       registry" Technical Note (TN) that it would like your input on
       before proceeding to ratify this TN.
       The TN provides a mapping for publishing BPEL4WS abstract processes
       into a UDDI registry. The primary goals of mapping BPEL4WS artifacts
       to the UDDI model are to:
          1. Enable the automatic registration of BPEL4WS definitions in
             UDDI
          2. Enable optimized and flexible UDDI queries based on specific
             BPEL4WS artifacts and metadata
          3. Provide composability with the mapping described in the "Using
             WSDL in a UDDI Registry, Version 2.0.2" [1] Technical Note.
       We would like to invite the BPEL TC to review and comment on the
       document and ask that you assign two or more reviewers.
       The TN is posted at the following locations by format:
             PDF:
             http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/8442/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.pdf

             MSWord:
             http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/8441/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.doc

       We would appreciate comments as soon as possible but preferably
       before 31 Aug 04. Please submit comments:
             To: Claus von Riegen, SAP (claus.von.riegen@sap.com),
             cc: (UDDI Chairs): luc.clement@systinet.com;
             tony.rogers@ca.com
             cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
       Thanks in advance


       Luc Clément
       Co-Chair OASIS UDDI Spec TC
       Systinet Corporation
       Tel: +1.617.395.6798


       [1] OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note: "Using WSDL in a UDDI
       Registry, Version 2.0.2",
       http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tns.htm#WSDLTNV2


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]