[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
Hi Danny, Regarding your sentence below regarding how you understand publicly visible behavior as leading up to conformance. This is sounding like a common misunderstanding so I'm thinking it is probably an bad/overloaded wording thing. In my longer note I try to explain what I meant by the phrase here and why it's not the black-box-and-look-at-messages idea. Any suggestions for different words that address that more clearly? thks Rania. Danny van der Rijn wrote: > rania- > > if by "publically visible behavior" you mean that if i publish my BPEL > file ("publicly visible") then i would agree. but i think that it's a > somewhat useless definition at that point. > my understanding of "publicly visible behavior" was that it was the > behavior that one can observe from an engine that is running stuff that > i can't look at. more like the definitions leading up to the observable > conformance definitions. in which case i disagree that this covers the > templating (bad word in this case, maybe?) area of use cases that i > would submit that yaron's example falls into. > > 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. >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]