RE: [wsbpel-abstract] RE: Strawman for discussion

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

In fact the opening sentence for the import pattern says " This is the
case where one starts with an abstract process and constructs either
another abstract process or an executable process" thus showing the
intent to cover Rania's case (d).  Clarification with the non BPEL
executable is desirable, but this depends on the nature of conformance -
it will hopefully be abstract enough (based on observable traces?) to
make this feasible.

 
-----Original Message-----
From: Trickovic, Ivana [mailto:ivana.trickovic@sap.com] 
Sent: Friday, August 27, 2004 7:37 AM
To: 'rkhalaf@us.ibm.com'
Cc: Satish Thatte; wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org; Nickolas
Kavantzas
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] RE: Strawman for discussion

Rania,

Aren't the two (additional) patterns you mentioned below addressed by
the import pattern? It is true that the pattern does not explicitly say
that executable processes do not have to be BPEL processes. I believe we
need no additional pattern but a short clarification. 

Regards,

Ivana

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Rania Khalaf [mailto:rkhalaf@us.ibm.com]
> Sent: Freitag, 27. August 2004 15:27
> To: Nickolas Kavantzas
> Cc: Trickovic, Ivana; 'Satish Thatte';
> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel-abstract] RE: Strawman for discussion
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi all,
> 
> Two things here:
> 
> -For point 1: there are two more you don't mention:
>    c)AbsProc--to-->Exec artifact(s) ie: does not have to be BPEL.
>    d)AbsProc--to-->AbsProc (refinement, where the second adds some but
> not all necessary detail to the first.
> 
> -For point 2, agreed.
> 
> -For point 3, see coming mail.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------
> Rania Y. Khalaf
> 
> Software Engineer
> Component Systems Group
> IBM TJ Watson Research Center
> Hawthorne, NY
> Tel: (914) 784-7603
> http://www.research.ibm.com/people/r/rkhalaf/
> 
> 
>                                                               
>                                                               
>          
>                       Nickolas Kavantzas                      
>                                                               
>          
>                       <nickolas.kavantzas@        To:       
> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org                          
>            
>                       oracle.com>                 cc:       
> "Trickovic, Ivana" <ivana.trickovic@sap.com>, "'Satish 
> Thatte'"          
>                                                    
> <satisht@microsoft.com>, Rania Khalaf/Watson/IBM@IBMUS        
>                     
>                       08/26/2004 03:43 PM         Subject:  
> Re: [wsbpel-abstract] RE: Strawman for discussion             
>            
>                                                               
>                                                               
>          
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some things of interest to add for clarity:
> 
> 
> -One of the points, was in a thread with Rania, myself and Satish:
> There are only two patterns:
>     a) ExecProc--to-->AbsProc
>     b) AbsProc--to-->ExecProc
> 
> 
> -Another point was that opq-activities (one type of the 
> opaque placeholder
> feature) are useful for all the patterns
> and should not be focused just on templates. An example that 
> was given was
> using opq-activities for resolving Issue99.
> 
> 
> -Rania provided an excellent analysis of the continuum of opaque
> placeholders for all the patterns (I guess Rania you can
> work as a consultant in NYC ;->) that is maybe of interest to 
> all of us.
> 
> 
> Since it is kind of difficult to replicate all the arguments 
> here it may be
> useful to forward the
> relevant discussion threads to the list as context. What do 
> you guys think?
> 
> 
> --
> Nick
> 
> 
> "Trickovic, Ivana" wrote:
>       Satish,
> 
> 
>       Thanks a lot for the summary. There are still some open 
> issues (as
>       you also emphasized in the document) but I do believe 
> we made great
>       progress. I find the three abstract usage patterns really useful
>       (instead of discussing concrete use cases).
> 
> 
>       Regards,
>       Ivana
> 
> 
>       -----Original Message-----
>       From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
>       Sent: Donnerstag, 26. August 2004 08:26
>       To: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
>       Cc: Nickolas Kavantzas; Rania Khalaf; Trickovic, Ivana
>       Subject: Strawman for discussion
> 
> 
>       Myself and the people on the CC list have had a few 
> exchanges around
>       a proposed joint statement on abstract processes.  We 
> did not have
>       the time to reach convergence, and as Phil pointed out, the full
>       discussion ought to happen in the broader group.  I attach my
>       strawman for further discussion.
>       The formulation is entirely mine - the CC line is of course at
>       liberty to question and criticize any and all points in 
> my document J
> 
>       I will unfortunately be out of town this Friday but 
> hope to rejoin
>       the discussion next week.
> 
> 
>       Satish
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
>