[Fwd: Re: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case]

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

Forwarded for Ron as he is not on abstract list. Thanks.

>>Thatte: Monica,
>>
>>Regarding your suggestion to maintain an explicit abstract/executable
>>distinction, probably using the current process-level attribute, I agree
>>with you.
>>
>>I don't quite understand what you mean by "statically verifiable set of
>>conditions to specify when a process model is ready to execute".  I
>>would hope that abstractProcess="no" and the schema for executable
>>processes plus simple static checks that we already have in the text
>>which we should gather in a list (issue 84) should be sufficient.  Did
>>you have something else in mind?  
>>
> Ten-Hove: This comes from a different line of thought that we were 
> kicking around internally. The idea was that abstract processes are 
> simply executable processes that are missing some details needed for 
> execution, or that contain placeholders for concrete activities 
> (opaque activities). A set of statically verifiable conditions could 
> be specified to allow this condition to be checked mechanically. The 
> conditions would include things like "no opaque activity nodes" and 
> "all expressions filled in." This is what Monica alluded to.
>
> The thought was that this model would allow abstract processes to be 
> more flexible -- the amount of detail in the process could run along a 
> continuum, from minimal to virtually complete, rather than the current 
> model that defines one point along that continuum.
>
> We thought this approach had some merit. It avoids the "two schema" 
> headache, and is flexible enough to accomodate a wide range of use 
> cases. It does add complexity to any tools that would exploit the 
> static definition of abstract process that we have today.
>
> Cheers,
> -Ron