[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
Satish Thatte wrote: > Danny, > > I think your description of the challenge response metaphor for proving conformance represents a misunderstanding of the intent (brute force search among lots of randomly generated possibilities was not the idea). Moreover, the templating case is explicitly supported in Rania's paper I believe. Rania and I will address that separately. There are two definitions of an abstract process in the first page of the document. The first one is the first paragraph of the doc. The second one is A on the 'Semantics of AbsProcesses' section. I am assuming that this is a potential use of an Abstract Process. So the text should then be: A. An abstract process may describe the publicly visible behavior of the services exposed by the process....(rest of the text in A) The other potential use of an Abstract Process is for 'templating' and I would assume that this should be included in this section too as B (put the text for that). -- Nick > > > But I am very curious about the specific details your customers would want to omit while still preserving the meaningfulness of the "process IP" they would be selling. Do you have a list of features that ought to be allowed for omission? > > Satish > > ________________________________ > > From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] > Sent: Thu 9/23/2004 8:57 PM > To: email@example.com; firstname.lastname@example.org; email@example.com > Subject: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman] > > you don't see that every day. i remembered the attachment, but forgot the inline text. > > the enclosed document is my quick reaction to the abstract presentation from yesterday. > > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman > Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:52:21 -0700 > From: Danny van der Rijn <firstname.lastname@example.org> <mailto:email@example.com> > To: firstname.lastname@example.org > CC: email@example.com, firstname.lastname@example.org > References: <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org">mailto:email@example.com> > > rkhalaf wrote: > > Hi everyone, > > As promised, here is the abstract process strawman document I have been putting together. This work aspired to define a consistent view of abstract processes and their use as the basis for continuted discussion and concrete proposals/resolutions. > > According to the Agenda, tomorrow or Thursday will be when the abstract proc stuff will be discussed. > > Regards, > Rania > > > > ________________________________ > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php. > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.php.