Issue - 109 - Compatibility between Abstract and Executable Processes

[ws-bpel issues list editor<peter.furniss@choreology.com>]

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list. The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent document with the title in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.

Issue - 109 - Compatibility between Abstract and Executable Processes

Status: open
Area: Abstract processes
Date added: 24 Mar 2004
Submitter: Monica J. Martin
Date submitted: 23 March 2004
Document: BPEL specification
Description: In multiple issues (issue 24 : Separate schemas for executable vs abstract BPEL , issue 42 : Need for Formalism , issue 82 : description of abstract processes in spec ,
issue 91 : Nested Activities in Abstract Processes , issue 97 : Optional Variable References in Abstract Processes  and issue 99 : Triggering activities for abstract processes , for example), we are 
seeing the need to be more explicit about the relationship and 
compatibility of abstract and executable processes. As indicated, the 
abstract process may be used for conformance for an executable process. 
In order to ensure stability for any conformance requirements (yet to be 
defined) and to lay the groundwork for conformance parameters that may 
be included in this specification, some mechanisms should be put in 
place to:

1. Minimize the risk of under specification of conformance of abstract-to-executable WS-BPEL.
2. Support type checking using the abstract process.
3. Encourage the future specification of behavior checking.
4. Define a mapping between the abstract and executable processes (like a template to the executable definition).
5. Identify what other constraints may be advised to support compatibility of abstract and executable processes.

At a minimum, item [d] should be explicitly defined in the technical 
specification.
Changes: 24 Mar 2004 - new issue

---

To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 109 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).