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>
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.
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.