[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
that's what we're doing right now, isn't it? Satish Thatte wrote: 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 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.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] abstractprocess 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> 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 continuteddiscussion 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 tohttp://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 tohttp://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_workgroup.php. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]