RE: [wsbpel-abstract] where is the dividing line?

["Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>]

Phil,

Trying to define abstract bpel is where part of my problem stems from.
I agree to the requirements and the use cases, I don't even have much of
a problem with Sally's 
defintion (aside from Business protocol stuff, but that's another
point). 
The problem is executable bpel can fullfill these requirements depending
on 
a customer's policies. If we are to have executbale and abstract, we
have to define a single dividing line in order to define two sets (where
one may be a pure subset of the other).

Martin.






>-----Original Message-----
>From: Rossomando, Philip [mailto:Philip.Rossomando@unisys.com] 
>Sent: 14 June 2004 15:19
>To: Martin Chapman
>Cc: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] where is the dividing line?
>
>
>
>Ok Martin, I assume that your definition is a single language 
>And we leave it up to the customer as to how to simplify it.
>I don't think there is a single dividing line. To look for one 
>Is to search for a Holly Grail. I would like to see from you 
>and Others within the TC their definition of what abstract BPL 
>is And the requirements for use. As was said in last week's 
>meeting A hopeful consensus definition and requirements list will be 
>Put together. Hopefully by the f2f. Some of our group 
>definitely See a place for abstract BPEL (e.g., SAP, et. al.).
>
>Phil
>
>PS. Your input is definitely appreciated. 
>
>Phil Rossomando
> 
>Research Director, Technology & Architecture
>Unisys Corporation
>Unisys Way, B-330
>Blue Bell, PA 19424 USA
>Philip.rossomando@unisys.com
>215-986-3998
>FAX 413-0215-2043
> 
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 10:07 AM
>To: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: [wsbpel-abstract] where is the dividing line?
>
>
>
>I've been listening with great interest to the discussions on 
>abstract BPEL as contracts, abstract BPEL as templates, and 
>abstract BPEL as an intermediate language, and I agree each 
>use case is valid. What I am having trouble with is how we can 
>define a single language to meet all these goals; where is the 
>single dividing line between abstract and executable BPEL?
>
>When a company exposes a definition to another company surely 
>it is up to the company to decide  how much detail it wants to 
>expose. If a company chooses to expose an executable BPEL 
>definition who are we to stop them? In fact there is no way of 
>stopping them. Internally, a company may want to expose more 
>detail between analyst and programmer then they would to 
>external parties, and different companies will have different 
>rules about what can be exposed and where. Some people may 
>want to make extensive use of <opaque> to inform others that 
>something internal will happen, others may stick to plain old 
>extensibility.
>
>My point is that all these use cases are valid, yet they 
>appear to have different exclusion requirements on the 
>language, and that different companies may have different 
>polices as to what gets exposed (or not). Is it really 
>possible to define a single syntax under the abstract BPEL 
>umbrella, which all vendors support and which precisely 
>matches a variety of customer usage policies. Sounds more than 
>a single language to me; it sound like a family of syntaxes. 
>Wouldn't it be better just to define a single language (BPEL) 
>and let tool vendors support customisation that allows each 
>*Customer*  to  decide what features are in and out?
>
>Look forward to your feedback,
>   Martin.
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Martin Chapman                                 
>Consulting Member of Technical Staff           
>Oracle                                        
>P: +353 87 687 6654                           
>e: martin.chapman@oracle.com                   
>
>