Re: [wsbpel-abstract] where is the dividing line?

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

Rossomando, Philip wrote:

>Monica:
>
>Rather than venture a guess at what you are saying. Could
>You elaborate a bit more? I personally don't think the
>Limitation should be there but I do think it would be a 
>Good idea to as "What must I communicate so that my 
>Expectations are understood?"  Where are you going with 
>Impact on executable bpel question?
>
mm2: Question related to do we expect the abstract to only serve as a 
guide for the partner or be used to guide the executable process 
(compatibility).

> I think I agree with
>Your last point. If I understand you, you are saying that
>What ever we do, we should not preclude the eventual 
>Support of other abstraction levels. 
>
mm1: I suggest we take a pragmatic approach to the abstraction levels 
that BPEL will support so as not to create an entry barrier.

>mm1: Two points, Phil, is the abstract process use limited only as a 
>guide to the perspective partner? What about the impact to the 
>executable process? As for the multiple abstraction levels, suggest we 
>take a pragmatic approach to enable implementation yet not provide a 
>barrier to entry. Thanks.
>
>  
>