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

["John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com>]

While a use case might assume the presence a modeling tool, we should
refrain from making any recommendations about modeling techniques or
graphical representations. 



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rossomando, Philip [mailto:Philip.Rossomando@unisys.com] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 12:06 PM
> To: Monica J. Martin; Tony Fletcher
> Cc: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Modification of Sally's 
> document from Tony
> 
> Interesting observations on both your parts.
> As I mentioned in my trial balloon proposal
> For an abstract bpel use case, I envision
> The business person putting together a visual
> Model and the abstract bpel is generated by
> A tool under the covers so to speak. Think
> IBM had such a tool for Eclipse. 
> 
> That minimum set of core requirements for 
> Abstract bpel make a lot of sense. It would
> Establish a framework and help to focus our
> Discussion. Tony what do you think?
> 
> Phil Rossomando
> 
> Good suggestions...
>  
> 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: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
> Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 2:16 PM
> To: Tony Fletcher
> Cc: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel-abstract] Modification of Sally's document from
> Tony
> 
> 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
> 
>