What I heard
before is that your customers
want to omit anything – which is almost like an editor’s
intermediate storage representation. We don’t need to standardize
that because it doesn’t need to have any semantics beyond editing.
that's what we're doing right
now, isn't it?
Satish Thatte wrote:
So then please describe what you have in mind so we can see the precise
differences.
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:44 AM
To: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
btw, the templating that was in the paper didn't really match the
templating that i'm describing which is why i called it out.
Danny van der Rijn wrote:
i was hoping that i misunderstood the intent. i bothered to be so
detailed so someone could point out the error in my misunderstanding.
as far as a list of features, no i don't have one. they are just
omitting what they please and providing what they find to be usefully
portable. but a concrete example of that that i do know is that they
are leaving out specifics of the WSDLs. "you receive an order here,
and you send a confirmation response." that's all that you need to
know at that point. not what a line item looks like. not even what
an order looks like.
Satish Thatte wrote:
Danny,
I think your description of the challenge response metaphor for
proving conformance represents a misunderstanding of the intent
(brute force search among lots of randomly generated possibilities
was not the idea). Moreover, the templating case is explicitly
supported in Rania's paper I believe. Rania and I will address that
separately.
But I am very curious about the specific details your customers would
want to omit while still preserving the meaningfulness of the
"process IP" they would be selling. Do you have a list of features
that ought to be allowed for omission?
Satish
________________________________
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
Sent: Thu 9/23/2004 8:57 PM
To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org;
wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
you don't see that every day. i remembered the attachment, but
forgot the inline text.
the enclosed document is my quick reaction to the abstract
presentation from yesterday.
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [wsbpel] abstract
process strawman
Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:52:21 -0700
From: Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>
<mailto:dannyv@tibco.com>
To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com
CC: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org,
wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
References: 41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com"><41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com>
41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com"><mailto:41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com>
rkhalaf wrote:
Hi everyone,
As promised, here is the abstract process strawman document I
have been putting together. This work aspired to define a consistent
view of abstract processes and their use as the basis for continuted
discussion and concrete proposals/resolutions.
According to the Agenda, tomorrow or Thursday will be when the
abstract proc stuff will be discussed.
Regards, Rania
________________________________
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_workgr
oup.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_workgr
oup.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.