Re: [wsbpel-abstract] Modification of Sally's document from Tony

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Tony Fletcher wrote:

> Dear Colleagues,
>  
> I have just added my thoughts for requirements on Abstract BPEL at the 
> end of Sally's document

mm1: Tony, when you indicate you could go from a messaging sequence 
diagram to an abstract process, this is only related to the view of the 
party correct? You also indicated in your paper that the abstract 
process would allow hiding. Reference:

<<<It must be possible to have an abstract BPEL process that only uses 
some, or none, of the optional language features.  An abstract BPEL 
process designer is able to add or omit detail as they please, limited 
only by the features of the language.>>>

Are we to infer then that we have a minimum set of core mandatory 
language features in the abstract process? Would that assist us in 
helping to ensure conformance (not compliance) [1] and/or compatibility 
with the executable process?

One more point, on your target audience, I am uncertain if a business 
process expert would be involved with abstract BPEL. The target 
audience, I believe begins with the architects you listed.


[1] Loaded term with implications for software