RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Requirements on abstract BPEL document

["Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Monica,

Thank you for your comments - revised document will be uploaded in a day or
two.  Some replies in line.

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions  (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com
 
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077  Mobile: +44 (0) 7801
948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
 


-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
Sent: 15 June 2004 19:16
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?

<Tony> Yes, BPEL of any sort currently only models a single party view.
</Tony>

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?
<Tony> Yes that might indeed make sense, but that could be quite a small
set, and could be the same as for executable or a sub-set of those for
executable. </Tony>

Would that assist us in helping to ensure conformance (not compliance) [1]
and/or compatibility 
with the executable process?
<Tony> Not a clue! but possibly. </Tony>

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.
<Tony> OK will make that change.  I was thinking that they might use
directly to get a degree of precision, though more likely indirectly via a
tool of some sort - such as graphical process modelling tool. </Tony>

[1] Loaded term with implications for software