Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]

[rkhalaf <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>]

yup, agreed :)

Monica J. Martin wrote:
> 
>>> Khalaf: The def is not supposed to yield an algorithm directly, but 
>>> to clearly and intuitively explain what this compliance def is 
>>> checking for. The algorithm one may use to check "observable 
>>> compliance" should not a brute force one from the def, and that's 
>>> quite obvious to tell (you could have infinitely many 
>>> minimum-no-fault-...-completions). Also, the definition is still 
>>> being clarified.
>>
>>
> mm1: Please, use the word 'conformance.' Compliance is most often a 
> regulatory, mandatory requirement that has legal implications on 
> software performance. I believe in the context of this discussion 
> conformance, not compliance applies. They are very different things. 
> Thank you.