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

[Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>]

Harvey Reed wrote:

>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.
>  
>
mm1: Sorry, I've been on travel for the last two weeks and very much 
behind on email. I think we should acknowledge that the legal entity is 
outside of our scope.
And, as we spoke to explicitly show the logical or physical enterprise 
as interesting to our efforts. 

>++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.
>
>
>  
>