[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote
+1 There is various work going on on formalizing BPEL. For example, a group at Humboldt University, Berlin, (under Prof. Reisig) is working on an ASM semantics for BPEL; they are close to finish (based on BPEL 1.1). I am sure that much more work in this space is under way all over the globe. We should definitively NOT do such kind of work within the TC, Regards, Frank To: "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>, <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> cc: "Uwe Glaesser" <glaesser@cs.sfu.ca> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote I agree with the resolution Peter proposed. Formalisms work is most interesting in surfacing ambiguities and irregularities in the process of construction of the formal model rather than in being the primary guide to interpretation or implementation. There is a precedent in the development of the formal semantics of the ITU-T standard SDL-2000. It is primarily for this reason that we should encourage the work in this direction. Professor Uwe Glaesser at Simon Fraser University has been leading one such effort for BPEL. Professor Glaesser was also a principal author of the SDL-2000 formal modelling work. He and his team may be able to update us on the latest results of their work on BPEL. Satish ________________________________ From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com] Sent: Fri 2/20/2004 4:00 AM To: Furniss, Peter; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote This is perhaps the proposal of the ignorant, since I'm really a biologist :-), but I was involved with OSI Transaction Processing standard, which had four more or less equivalent definitions: procedural text; state tables; Lotos; Estelle. The two formalisms took up 60% or so of the document, and were used only be very limited groups. Implementors (such as there were :-( ) used the first two. I heard of another standard (not in OSI) that included formalisms and took over seven years to reach completion ! Peter -----Original Message----- From: Furniss, Peter Sent: 20 February 2004 11:20 To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 42 - Proposal to vote Proposal: Close without change to the specification Rationale: Although the use and definitions of formalisms can be useful in understanding and defining a specification, including such in a formal description as normative in a specification that is also in natural language and less formal expressions has the drawbacks: a) it is a very large effort, and can significantly delay the completion of the specification b) formal specifications tend to be understood only by a few and many of the subject-area experts will use and think in terms of the non-formal description, in development of both the specification and implementations. c) if there is conflict between the formal and non-formal which is to have precedence ? Separate formal descriptions of bpel, not included in the specification and without normative authority are to be encouraged. 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 .
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]