[no subject]

At the highest abstraction
Level you may not only have syntactic abstraction but
Also semantic abstraction. Sort of writing on the back of
A napkin. At the next level semantic abstraction may become
More crisp but syntax may still be open to say leaving
Things out. This would be like the total implicit approach
Mentioned by Satish. This level may be where partner communication
Takes place.=20

At the next level lower you may start to add place
Holders. Sort of sign posts for coders. Here I would like
To see something. You might even add comments with suggestions
To a coder sort of constraining expectations. Finally at the=20
Lowest level you may have full blown executable BPEL.=20

Phil Rossomando

PS. Anyone who would like to is welcome to join in the discussion. :-)
=20
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
=20

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]=20
Sent: Monday, June 14, 2004 11:32 AM
To: Rossomando, Philip
Cc: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] where is the dividing line?

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=20
defintion (aside from Business protocol stuff, but that's another
point).=20
The problem is executable bpel can fullfill these requirements depending
on=20
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]=20
>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=20
>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=20
>Is to search for a Holly Grail. I would like to see from you=20
>and Others within the TC their definition of what abstract BPL=20
>is And the requirements for use. As was said in last week's=20
>meeting A hopeful consensus definition and requirements list will be=20
>Put together. Hopefully by the f2f. Some of our group=20
>definitely See a place for abstract BPEL (e.g., SAP, et. al.).
>
>Phil
>
>PS. Your input is definitely appreciated.=20
>
>Phil Rossomando
>=20
>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
>=20
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]=20
>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=20
>abstract BPEL as contracts, abstract BPEL as templates, and=20
>abstract BPEL as an intermediate language, and I agree each=20
>use case is valid. What I am having trouble with is how we can=20
>define a single language to meet all these goals; where is the=20
>single dividing line between abstract and executable BPEL?
>
>When a company exposes a definition to another company surely=20
>it is up to the company to decide  how much detail it wants to=20
>expose. If a company chooses to expose an executable BPEL=20
>definition who are we to stop them? In fact there is no way of=20
>stopping them. Internally, a company may want to expose more=20
>detail between analyst and programmer then they would to=20
>external parties, and different companies will have different=20
>rules about what can be exposed and where. Some people may=20
>want to make extensive use of <opaque> to inform others that=20
>something internal will happen, others may stick to plain old=20
>extensibility.
>
>My point is that all these use cases are valid, yet they=20
>appear to have different exclusion requirements on the=20
>language, and that different companies may have different=20
>polices as to what gets exposed (or not). Is it really=20
>possible to define a single syntax under the abstract BPEL=20
>umbrella, which all vendors support and which precisely=20
>matches a variety of customer usage policies. Sounds more than=20
>a single language to me; it sound like a family of syntaxes.=20
>Wouldn't it be better just to define a single language (BPEL)=20
>and let tool vendors support customisation that allows each=20
>*Customer*  to  decide what features are in and out?
>
>Look forward to your feedback,
>   Martin.
>
>
>
>_________________________________________________________________
>Martin Chapman                                =20
>Consulting Member of Technical Staff          =20
>Oracle                                       =20
>P: +353 87 687 6654                          =20
>e: martin.chapman@oracle.com                  =20
>
>