[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
So then please describe what you have in mind so we can see the precise differences. -----Original Message----- From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:44 AM To: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman] btw, the templating that was in the paper didn't really match the templating that i'm describing which is why i called it out. Danny van der Rijn wrote: > i was hoping that i misunderstood the intent. i bothered to be so > detailed so someone could point out the error in my misunderstanding. > > as far as a list of features, no i don't have one. they are just > omitting what they please and providing what they find to be usefully > portable. but a concrete example of that that i do know is that they > are leaving out specifics of the WSDLs. "you receive an order here, > and you send a confirmation response." that's all that you need to > know at that point. not what a line item looks like. not even what > an order looks like. > > Satish Thatte wrote: > >> Danny, >> >> I think your description of the challenge response metaphor for >> proving conformance represents a misunderstanding of the intent >> (brute force search among lots of randomly generated possibilities >> was not the idea). Moreover, the templating case is explicitly >> supported in Rania's paper I believe. Rania and I will address that >> separately. >> >> But I am very curious about the specific details your customers would >> want to omit while still preserving the meaningfulness of the >> "process IP" they would be selling. Do you have a list of features >> that ought to be allowed for omission? >> >> Satish >> >> ________________________________ >> >> From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] >> Sent: Thu 9/23/2004 8:57 PM >> To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; >> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >> Subject: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman] >> >> >> you don't see that every day. i remembered the attachment, but >> forgot the inline text. >> >> the enclosed document is my quick reaction to the abstract >> presentation from yesterday. >> >> -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [wsbpel] abstract >> process strawman >> Date: Thu, 23 Sep 2004 20:52:21 -0700 >> From: Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com> >> <mailto:dannyv@tibco.com> >> To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com >> CC: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org, >> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >> References: <41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com> >> <41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com">mailto:41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com> >> >> >> >> >> rkhalaf wrote: >> Hi everyone, >> As promised, here is the abstract process strawman document I >> have been putting together. This work aspired to define a consistent >> view of abstract processes and their use as the basis for continuted >> discussion and concrete proposals/resolutions. >> According to the Agenda, tomorrow or Thursday will be when the >> abstract proc stuff will be discussed. >> Regards, Rania >> >> >> ________________________________ >> >> >> 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_workgr oup.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/leave_workgr oup.php. >> >> >> >> >> > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]