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

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

Hi, yup!
My next move was to carve up that part of the paper related to 
conformance and post it to the issue on conformance so we can keep 
discussing there. The conformance discussion hasn't even really begun ..

Got tied up with 82 and 107 :(

Rania

Danny van der Rijn wrote:
> also, since you dragged up my "brute force" argument, while i am pleased 
> to hear satish say that that's not the intent, i have seen no further 
> discussion there.  just a reminder to anyone who is interested in that 
> part of the paper that they should keep discussing it.
> 
> danny
> 
> rkhalaf wrote:
> 
>> Hi,
>>
>> I think that "publicly visible behavior" covers both templating and 
>> observable stuff because it's the behavior that you make visible to 
>> the recipient of the file. In case of templating, that is the 
>> template-filling-person and he/she sees the part of the behavior that 
>> is expressed in this process. In the case of giving a description of 
>> your behavior to a third party (to implement, or to know how to 
>> interact with you etc) it's a complete description of what you will be 
>> doing.
>>
>> Perhaps later in the spec we can have a use cases section similar to 
>> the one in the circulated doc with templating and observable behavior 
>> scenarios explicitly mentioned. Could also be touched on in 107, to 
>> say "for example, in a templating scenario one would use opaque as an 
>> explicit fill point" .
>>
>> -Rania
>>
>> Nickolas Kavantzas wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> There are two definitions of an abstract process in the first page of 
>>> the document.
>>>
>>> The first one is the first paragraph of the doc.
>>>
>>> The second one is A on the 'Semantics of AbsProcesses' section.
>>> I am assuming that this is a potential use of an Abstract Process. So 
>>> the text should then be:
>>> A. An abstract process may describe the publicly visible behavior of 
>>> the services exposed by the process....(rest of the text in A)
>>>
>>> The other potential use of an Abstract Process is for 'templating' 
>>> and I would assume that this should be included in
>>> this section too as B (put the text for that).
>>>
>>>
>>> -- 
>>> Nick
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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> 
>>>> <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_workgroup.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. 
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> 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. 
>>
>>
>>
> 
> 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. 
>