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

[Nickolas Kavantzas <nickolas.kavantzas@oracle.com>]

Copying text from my emails to you for the benefit of the others:

Looking at issue 99, this is about changing the operational semantics of BPEL processes, so one does not have to specify a lifecycle activity, if desired, at the beginning of an Abs process.

Now repeating from my note:

An Abstract process is a partially specified Executable process, missing operational details that are required to be concretized when/if mapping the partial specification to a fully executable program.
Examples of the missing operational details of an Abstract process are:
       · Expressions- as used in assign, switch
       · Attributes- as used in receive for input variables
       · One or more Activities- as used for hiding the lifecycle (receive-start/terminate)
       activities, other activities or sub-processes (a set of two or more activities)

Opaque placeholders are explicit designators used by a process designer for specifying the points where the missing operational details are required to be concretized, when/if mapping a partial specification to a fully executable program.
 

So, opq activity gives you the semantic mechanism to describe the missing operational
details, thus resolving issue 99. I am not sure though how the implicit omission of details would do that.
 

IMHO, I think we must answer a more general question first:

Should/Could we trace the execution of an AbsProcess?
If yes what are the rules that prescribe the possible traces? Also, are these rules different from the rules used for tracing the execution of an ExecProcess?

--
Nick
 

"Trickovic, Ivana" wrote:

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.
>
>