RE: [tamie] Preview of BP transforms to LTS (with limited visualization)

["Durand, Jacques R." <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>]

Dale:

Great. We will modify next Tuesday TaMIE agenda to put this on.

Jacques 

-----Original Message-----
From: Moberg Dale [mailto:dmoberg@axway.com] 
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2008 10:12 AM
To: tamie@lists.oasis-open.org
Cc: Nikola Stojanovic; Andreas Schönberger; Matthew Arrott; Monica J. Martin
Subject: [tamie] Preview of BP transforms to LTS (with limited visualization)

Hi

This message is concerned with compiling Business Process descriptions into testing/monitoring assertions in the ETSL language TaMie is developing.

In the attachments, I have provided 3 ebBP/BPSS 2.0 examples of purchase order management public process descriptions (also called choreographies, interaction protocols, etc.).

I have included the LTS (labeled transition systems) generated from these three examples that provides the "semantic" information about states, their transitions, and the labels (sets of first order expressions) for those transitions.

Finally I have included some drawings of the LTSes as (computer science sense) graphs.

The XSLTs for doing the transforms up to GXL (graph exchange language, which is used to input into the graphical tools) are available for the curious, but both incomplete and unpolished. (For GXL to JPGs conversions, I use a java graph tool built on open source JGraph API called JGraphPad; an input file in compressed gzip format is available if you want to edit the original diagrams, but you will need to download the tool off the net.)

Given these inputs, the next steps are to compile LTS information into ETSL code. I expect this process to help guide what needs to be added back into the LTS label fields to produce workable code. At present the information in the labels come from ebBP's DocumentEnvelopeLanguage or ConditionGuardLanguage. Other languages are allowed in ebBP, and the ones that are used can probably be expanded into XPath 2.0 and/or Xquery expressions by making use of additional information in the ebBP process description instances. However, I will need the TC members to help state what is needed/useful in order to get closer to working ETSL outputs.

Bye
Dale Moberg

PS You might notice that the transition and decision LTSes are structurally the same graphs and in fact, the choreographies only differ in terms of gateway diagrams, and not "substantially". This is another advantage of casting BP descriptions into the canonical LTS formats before translating into ETSL, IMO.