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

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

>
>>mm1: ....do we expect the abstract to only serve as a 
>>guide for the partner or be used to guide the executable process 
>>(compatibility).....
>>    
>>
>Evdemon: I expect it to be used as a set of guidelines.  Public processes do not
>usually place restrictions on the private implementations needed to
>support the public process (my reasons here are influenced by the way
>EDI/e-business has worked for decades in the past).  
>
>Maybe I'm misunderstanding your point - why would private processes have
>to be compatible?
>
mm1: Would you not think that if the abstract guides the executable that 
they are compatible?  This seems to be inferred by the specification 
(see introduction, section 1):

...............Even where private implementation aspects use 
platform-dependent functionality, which is likely in many if not most 
realistic cases, the continuity of the basic conceptual model between 
abstract and executable processes in BPEL4WS makes it possible to export 
and Web Services Business Process Execution Language  import the public 
aspects embodied in business protocols as process or role templates 
while maintaining the intent and structure of the protocols.......

In summary, we believe that the two usage patterns of business protocol 
description and executable business process description require a common 
core of process description concepts..............

Thanks.