Prasad:
You can’t hide. J That is
the problem as Martin was saying we have different
Users. In a later posted not I identified three.
Each can expect to see something
Different as far as what is visible. Ok, let’s say
you are at the SAP level in my
Previous email and you want to distinguish that
level from executable bpel.
What would you drop out of executable bpel to
achieve the SAP level?
Phil
PS. Only 2 Yen?
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: Prasad
Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Monday, June 14,
2004 2:34 PM
Cc: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-abstract] where is
the dividing line?
Hi,
I guess this
aspect had been discussed adnauseam but, for me the dividing line for
abstract process (vs executable) lies where the descriptions of abstract
process confine to publicly observable behavior of a process, without
getting into any executable (private) aspects. Abstract process
descriptions need to be limited to describing the aspects needed by external
parties, viz. end-users and other (complementary) business processes
that interact with the process. All the language constructs that go
beyond the above requirements need to be placed out-side the scope of the
abstract process definitions. If a process description goes beyond the
abstract level and includes constructs that are not classified as abstract
level in the specification, then the process description is no longer at the
abstract level.
The difficult part then is to factor in different
uses cases that fit the above definition and identify, limit as needed and
perhaps add more constructs to BPEL to facilitate the above.
My 2
yens on this (ducking for cover:)
Prasad
-------- Original
Message --------
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