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

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Monica,
 
What I meant to highlight is that conformance means one thing in a template-like use case ("at least those indicated by the abstract process") and in "behavioral interfaces" meant to describe externally observable behavior ("exactly those indicated by the abstract process").  They are variants of conformance, but each should be precisely defined when used in a certain context.  For instance, vertical industry standards may well choose to use behavioral interfaces to describe the behavior of each party in an industry standard exchange pattern for business messages, and in that case behavioral conformance (of the kind that we started to define using minimal no-fault completions) would apply.
 
Satish

________________________________

From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tue 9/28/2004 6:41 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Danny van der Rijn; rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]



>
>
>...Thatte: ......Variations of conformance notions may constrain visible
>interactions to, for instance, exactly those indicated by the abstract
>process, or at least those indicated by the abstract process.  Such
>variation of interpretation is perfectly acceptable so long as it is
>clearly defined.
> 
>
mm1: Satish, given your point and Danny's about how / to what extent
those decisions are made between partners or within a vertical industry,
does conformance apply here or is it actually guidance or compatibility
between the abstract and one of the adjoining executable processes?
Thank you.