RE: [wsbpel-abstract] RE: My Abstract & Executable BPEL Processes Unified note [was Re: [wsbpel-abstract] Strawman for discussion]

["Trickovic, Ivana" <ivana.trickovic@sap.com>]

Monica,

My statement refers to issue 99 exclusively.

Regards,

Ivana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
> Sent: Freitag, 27. August 2004 17:01
> To: Trickovic, Ivana
> Cc: 'Nickolas Kavantzas'; wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org; Satish
> Thatte; Rania Khalaf
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel-abstract] RE: My Abstract & Executable BPEL
> Processes Unified note [was Re: [wsbpel-abstract] Strawman for
> discussion]
> 
> 
> 
> > Trikovic: Regarding issue 99: Abstract processes cannot be 
> > instantiated and executed - therefore "lifecycle" activities play 
> > little or no role for abstract processes. Also the BPEL 
> specification 
> > is saying that BPEL executable processes must contain at least one 
> > "start activity". So opaque activity is not really 
> necessary in this 
> > case (issue 99) - the specification is clear about places 
> which need 
> > to be further specified (or concretised) when mapping an abstract 
> > process to an executable process.
> >
> mm1: Is it not true that the abstract subgroup was formed to fully 
> understand what the abstract process was and also provide more 
> information to determine _if_ the specification is clear about places 
> which need to be further specified (or concretised) when mapping an 
> abstract process to an executable process? Establishing the scope and 
> use of the abstract process may result in changes to the 
> assumptions in 
> the existing specification, correct? Thank you.
> 
>