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

["Rossomando, Philip" <Philip.Rossomando@unisys.com>]

John:

While modeling may be out of scope for now,
I think we should recognize that potential 
Use case. Having done so, we can say that we 
Recognize it to be out of scope. Thus people
Reading the spec will not feel we forgot to even 
Think of it.

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: John Evdemon [mailto:jevdemon@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 15, 2004 3:47 PM
To: Rossomando, Philip; Monica J. Martin; Tony Fletcher
Cc: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Modification of Sally's document from
Tony

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
> 
>