[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case
Satish, I thought on Friday we had tentative agreement that opaque should be part of (abstract) BPEL to identify mandatory extension points, but its use is optional. Martin. >-----Original Message----- >From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] >Sent: 16 July 2004 17:48 >To: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case > > >I think we are agreeing on a few things > >1. abstract BPEL allows partial specification of executable processes. > >2. we need a precise definition of conformance between a >partial process and any executable process that claims to be >its completion > >3. We do not want to preclude any use case for abstract >processes, including > >a. A notation for specifying the externally visible behavior >of a web service or a collection of web services where the >notation may be used with various degrees of austerity as >appropriate for the needs of the specifier, > >b. A notation for exchange of process requirements across >autonomous entities where the abstract and the executable >process are NOT "owned" by the same entity, and > >c. A notation for partial specification in a modeling context >where the abstract and the executable process ARE "owned" by >the same entity. > >4. <opaque> activities and expressions are primarily intended >as a proposal for allowing the designer of an abstract process >to express his/her intentions regarding mandatory points of >extension. The purpose of <opaque> is NOT to specify all >allowable points of extension, prohibiting all other potential >points of extension in the completion of an abstract process. >Secondarily, <opaque> activities and expressions serve as a >convenience for technical specification and validation using a >single schema. > >I would argue that the technical convenience argument for ><opaque> is a weak one because the syntactically mandated >completion points can be easily found by tools and forcing an >abstract process designer to explicitly design them in helps >tools and BPEL specification writers at the expense of the >users of abstract BPEL, i.e., those who read and write >instances of abstract BPEL. This is especially the case for >use case (a) above where brevity and readability are likely to >be very important. > >I believe the primary intention of the <opaque> proposal as a >mechanism for expressing the intention for mandatory extension >applies primarily to use case (c) and as such I would argue >that it belongs more in the realm of a tools oriented >extension rather than an essential aspect of abstract BPEL. > >Satish > > >________________________________________ >From: Satish Thatte >Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 10:20 PM >To: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case > >I would add that in real scenarios external views are often >linked with modeling requirements. A large company may >specify a "required external view" in the form of an abstract >process for its partners' processes without dictating how such >a process is completed by the partners. The partners may need >to take their required external view and use it as input into >a modeling environment for completion and implementation in >their own environments. However, it is extremely unlilely >that the large company will dictate exactly how the process is >to be completed by specifying the exact places where it must >be extended. Each partner may of course complete and >implement the process differently, so long as all maintain the >externally visible contract specified by the abstract process. > >We would therefore be better off specifying the base techical >notion of abstract processes as partial processes and we >should avoid attempts to narrow the space of use cases artificially. > >Satish > >________________________________________ >From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] >Sent: Thu 7/15/2004 9:41 PM >To: Ashwini Surpur; wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use >case Aren't you confusing a use case with a set of >"requirements" marked with "MUST"? > >I am not opposed to the use of abstract BPEL for supporting >modeling tools, if it suits. > >I am opposed to structuring abstract BPEL in such a way that >it is ONLY or PRIMARILY focused on supporting modeling tools. > >There are several reasons for this. > >1. This is inconsistent with the current spec which expresses >the intentions of the original authors rather clearly, as well >as the charter. All of these emphasize the public view aspect >of abstract BPEL and it is not at all clear that the use of >OPAQUE is suitable for that. > >2. The *technical* motivation for this push away from the >original intentions is not clear -- it would be helpful to >have that explained. > >3. At a technical level, we recognize that abstract processes >are partially specified executable processes. One can provide >an external view as a partially specified process by >eliminating all unnecessary detail. One can also use the very >same partial specification as the basis for representing >intermediate states in a modeling exercise. > >In both cases you need a notion of faithful completion. I do >not buy that faithful completion is a purely syntactic matter >of specifying OPAQUE syntactic elements. This may be adequate >for some narrow use cases but is clearly suboptimal for the >technology as a whole. > >It is not, and has never been our charter to specifically >address the requirements of (visual or other) tools for >process modeling. I simply see no reason to bring that in as >the canonical use case. > >It is time we moved beyond this. Let us use the call tomorrow >to do so. > >Satish > > > >________________________________ > >From: Ashwini Surpur [mailto:Ashwini.Surpur@oracle.com] >Sent: Thu 7/15/2004 4:49 PM >To: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >Subject: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case > > > >Hi, > >Here is a use case and some requirements that we feel should >be satisfied. If needed, we can discuss this at tomorrow's conf call. > >Thanks, >Ashwini > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]