my point exactly. my reading of the UDDI
paper (combined with my fading memory) suggests that the UDDI registry wouldn't
help you consume the 800lb gorilla's BPEL as they could only publish BPEL that
corresponds to concrete WSDL bindings that they would own.
danny
----- Original Message -----
Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 2:06
PM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a
UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested
External partners wouldn't publish their own process - they
would consume a process "template" consisting of abstract BPEL that was
published (perhaps in a UDDI repository) by the 800lb gorilla (e.g. a
Wal-Mart).
> -----Original Message----- >
From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de] > Sent:
Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:05 AM > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org >
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/downloa d.php/8442/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.pdf >
>
MSWord: >
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/downloa d.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/le ave_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/le ave_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.
|