RE: [wsbpel-uc] RE: issue 82

["Ben Bloch" <ben_b54@hotmail.com>]

Phil,

My bad here.  I was supposed to work with you to drive toward developing the
language and I dropped the ball.  My apologies. I agree this still needs
resolution so thanks for bringing it back up.  Let me take a swag at getting
it restarted.  Some attributes:

Abstract processes:
- are purely descriptive (similar to WSDL)
- know and say nothing about the implementation of the underlying service(s)
- do not require an implementation based on executable BPEL

The relationship between abstract interfaces and implementations are such
that:
- Multiple implementations are allowed and indeed expected
- Multiple abstract processes can exist for a single executable

Maybe Tony and Frank can chime in here to make sure we don't miss anything.
Once we complete this list, we can develop some language around it - and I
am happy to do that.
 
Ben

-----Original Message-----
From: Rossomando, Philip [mailto:Philip.Rossomando@unisys.com] 
Sent: Monday, January 26, 2004 3:23 PM
To: wsbpel-uc@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] RE: issue 82



Phil Rossomando
 
Research Director, Technology & Architecture
Unisys Corporation
Unisys Way, B-330
Blue Bell, PA 19424 USA
Philip.rossomando@unisys.com
215-986-3998
FAX 413-0215-2043
 

Guys:

In Novemember of last year Ben Bloch wrote:

Better describe abstract processes in spec, particularly in terms of
what they are, what they are not, and the relationshop between abstract
and executable processes. This is mostly wordsmithing the spec along the
lines of the messages Steve Capell, 23 Oct 2003, Ben Bloch, 24 Oct 2003,
Frank Leymann, 25 Oct 2003 (identified in the list below as "possible
text").

Having just completed reading the 1.1 rewrite. I think this issue still
Needs addressing. Plus, it's still open. Any comments.

Phil

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-uc/members/leave_workgro
up.php.