RE: [wsbpel-uc] Conf Call today at 4 PM ET / 1 PM PT

[Harvey Reed <hreed@sonicsoftware.com>]

Monica,

It sounds like we have been in agreement the whole time, and are even
stressing the same points. However, it sounds like there is something
concrete you want changed in the docs as proposed. I am eager to find out
how we can improve the docs with the changes you are thinking about. Please
make a suggestion for edits to the docs as proposed.

++Harvey



-----Original Message-----
From: Monica Martin [mailto:monica.martin@sun.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, August 19, 2003 2:13 AM
To: Harvey Reed
Cc: 'bpel usecase'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-uc] Conf Call today at 4 PM ET / 1 PM PT


>Reed: .....The rationale for having the "legal entitites" is so that when
we see
>web-service-1 and web-service-2 called out in BPEL, we know (outside of
>BPEL) who owns what, so we can at least follow the use case, and perhaps
>even test the public/private nature of abstract and executable BPEL.
>
>Keep in mind, even in intra-enterprise cases, ownership is still important,
>and the distinction between public and private is still important. If you
>still feel that "legal entities" is confusing, is there a better way to
>approach this, keeping the ability to have one example world that we reuse,
>with public and private parts? 
>........
>
mm1: Isn't public/private (and even ownership to an extent) driven by 
what is exposed and externally observable, regardless of where it is?  
See what I mean, public and private is often relative.
Thanks, Harvey.