[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested
External partners wouldn't publish their own process - they would consume a process "template" consisting of abstract BPEL that was published (perhaps in a UDDI repository) by the 800lb gorilla (e.g. a Wal-Mart). > -----Original Message----- > From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:B.Eckenfels@seeburger.de] > Sent: Tuesday, August 10, 2004 8:05 AM > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" > OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested > > Dannys observation also applies to the 2-party case. It is > not very helpfull for external partners to publish your own > process. If they want to interface with you, the need the > Abstract representation of the Process they have to > implement. Of course publishing your opwn process abstrac > makes sense in other situations like sharing your engeneering efford. > > I totally agree that this TN should wait of the outcome of > the abstract subgroup and the abstrac subgroup should use the > "publish in uddi" as a major usecase. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Bernd Eckenfels > Chief Architect > -- > SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany > Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256 > mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 11:27 PM > To: Danny van der Rijn > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" > OASIS UDDI Spec > TC Technical Note - Review Requested > > > > > > > I don't think Bernd's use case assumes a multiparty scenario. > The TN seems > to cover reasonably well the 2 party case; it also seems reasonable to > start with that simple case (since almost everyone understands it) but > eventually we'll want to figure out whether or when a > multiparty BPEL would > need to be registered in UDDI. > > Paco > > > > > > > Danny van der > > > Rijn To: > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > <dannyv@tibco.com cc: > > > > Subject: Re: > [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec > TC Technical > Note - Review > Requested > > 08/05/2004 04:19 > > > PM > > > > > > > > > > i agree with the sentiment of your note, bernd. however, > according to my > reading of the TN, that (multi-party) usage isn't covered. > what the travel > agency can register is the abstract BPEL that describes THEIR > OWN behavior, > and not a "you implement this" abstract BPEL. > > danny > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Eckenfels. Bernd > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Sent: Thursday, August 05, 2004 8:54 AM > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" > OASIS UDDI Spec TC > Technical Note - Review Requested > > Hello Danny, > > for a service provider (i.e. TravelAgency) it makes sense to > publish an > abstract BPEL PRocess which describes as a template how a Process of a > TravelAgent has to look like. AbstractBPEL cannot describe > the observal > overall process, but it can describe in an abstract way the exepcted > sequence of invocations (and therefore also the offered ports). > > I think the UDDI TN is nearly compelte in that respect, only > the wording > "observal state" needs to be changed. > > Also I wonder if the Process Local Name needs to have its own > attribut in > the tModel/Bag, but I am not very familiar with UDDI. > > Mit freundlichen Grüßen > Bernd Eckenfels > Chief Architect > -- > SEEBURGER AG - Edisonstr.1 , D-75015 Bretten, Germany > Fax: +49 (0)7252 96-2400 - Phone: +49 (0)7252 96-1256 > mailto:b.eckenfels@seeburger.de - http://www.seeburger.de > -----Original Message----- > From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] > Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 9:52 PM > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI > registry" OASIS UDDI > Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested > > as i said in conference today, i am afraid that the > UDDI TC is even > more confused about what Abstract BPEL is than we are. > other than > pointing out even more strongly the importance of getting our > definition of Abstract BPEL pinned down, i think that this note > should lead us in 2 directions: > > 1) finding out why someone would want to register an > Abstract BPEL > with UDDI. > 2) changing the name of Abstract BPEL. this is not the > first time > i've seen someone confuse the relationship between > Abstract BPEL and > Executable BPEL to conflate it with the relationship > between Abstract > WSDL and Concrete WSDL, and unless we change the name, > i'm sure it > won't be the last. > > i admit, i haven't read the UDDI proposal referenced in > this note, > but i feel pretty safe in my assumption without having read it. > > danny > ----- Original Message ----- > From: Luc Clement > To: drj@us.ibm.com ; jevdemon@microsoft.com > Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org ; > wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org ; > Karl F. Best ; James Bryce Clark ; Mary McRae ; Tony Rogers > Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:58 PM > Subject: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" > OASIS UDDI Spec > TC Technical Note - Review Requested > > Dear WSBPEL Chairs, > The UDDI Spec TC has been working on a "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI > registry" Technical Note (TN) that it would like your input on > before proceeding to ratify this TN. > The TN provides a mapping for publishing BPEL4WS > abstract processes > into a UDDI registry. The primary goals of mapping > BPEL4WS artifacts > to the UDDI model are to: > 1. Enable the automatic registration of BPEL4WS > definitions in > UDDI > 2. Enable optimized and flexible UDDI queries based > on specific > BPEL4WS artifacts and metadata > 3. Provide composability with the mapping described > in the "Using > WSDL in a UDDI Registry, Version 2.0.2" [1] > Technical Note. > We would like to invite the BPEL TC to review and > comment on the > document and ask that you assign two or more reviewers. > The TN is posted at the following locations by format: > PDF: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/downloa d.php/8442/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.pdf > > MSWord: > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/downloa d.php/8441/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.doc > > We would appreciate comments as soon as possible but preferably > before 31 Aug 04. Please submit comments: > To: Claus von Riegen, SAP (claus.von.riegen@sap.com), > cc: (UDDI Chairs): luc.clement@systinet.com; > tony.rogers@ca.com > cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org > Thanks in advance > > > Luc Clément > Co-Chair OASIS UDDI Spec TC > Systinet Corporation > Tel: +1.617.395.6798 > > > [1] OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note: "Using WSDL in a UDDI > Registry, Version 2.0.2", > > http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tns.htm#WSDLTNV2 > > > 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/le ave_workgroup.php. > > > 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/le ave_workgroup.php. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]