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

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Satish Thatte wrote:

>I don't understand the distinction you are drawing when you write
>"guidance or compatibility between the abstract and one of the adjoining
>executable processes rather than conformance".
>  
>
mm1: The latter infers more rigor and requirements on the 
implementation. Guidance is only that - this is a best practice and 
recommended that an executable process be conformant to an abstract one. 
However, it's not dictated by the specification. Conformance, although 
voluntary, infers that, for example, the mandatory functions of a 
specification can be tested against in a verifiable way.  With the case 
of abstract-executable, the conformance is two-fold - to the 
specification and the executable to the abstract. Another discriminator 
would be:

    * Monitored or passive: An executable process could be compatible
      with an abstract process. This could still support conformance of
      an abstract or executable process to the specification. It however
      does not require an executable process to be conformant to an
      abstract process. It could be recommended.
    * Active or directed: An executable process is evaluated to be
      conformant with an abstract process. The use of executable process
      could be constrained by the conformance to the abstract process. 
      It also infers that the abstract and executable are conformant to
      the specification.

I am not supporting one over the other, but making the distinction as it 
is relevant to this discussion and what it infers on implementations.
Thank you.