[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
i'm not sure i like the adjective 'pseudo' here, but yes. through
qnames that are unresolved. or through properties that are similarly
unresolved.. Satish Thatte wrote: So how do they refer to things like order? Using pseudo qnames for the schemas? -----Original Message----- From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:25 AM To: Satish Thatte Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman] 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 provingconformance 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 wouldwant 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.orgSubject: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman] you don't see that every day. i remembered the attachment, but forgotthe inline text.the enclosed document is my quick reaction to the abstract presentationfrom 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.orgReferences: 41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com"><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 Ihave 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 theabstract proc stuff will be discussed.Regards, Rania ________________________________ To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from theroster 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 rosterof 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]