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

[<andrew.francis@mail.mcgill.ca>]

Hello Monica:

> mm1: Compliance raises the bar on an implementation,

It seems to me that the more fundamental problem is (to
the best of my knowledge) nobody is writing and deploying
abstract processes. Heck, the strawman is trying to define
abstract process and how to use them!!!

I, myself, am more interested in determining what
existing theories out there give insights into how
abstract processes work, determining what are the
idioms for writing  them, and figuring out best practices
for deploying them.

>This is outside of the 'technical' contract. An example
>is HIPAA where certification is required through a series
>of tests with  verifiable results before production.
>It is a mandate through government  regulation.

Monica, the formal contract builds on top of the
technical contract. Also I feel you are mixing up
verification with validation.

Let us assume that abstract processes, at their minimum,
are representations of a protocol. Verification consists
of ensuring that one can properly derive a concrete
implementation as per the abstract process.

Validation constitutes whether the implementation actually
implements some external specification such as HL7, that
the abstract process is based on.


Cheers,
Andrew