[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
rania - while i understand the objection that you and satish have to my thoughts, i understand. i am just worried, as i attempted to say, that we are tailoring a syntax that serves an immature technology. rkhalaf wrote: > Hi Danny, > > Thanks for your doc. > > Regarding conformance, we make it very clear that there are many > different possible conformance relations that may define them in a > paraallel effort as you suggest - but if we have a good way to define > a useful one that covers important cases, I think it's useful to have > the definition there. If you look at the bottom of the doc you can see > that one of the issues was whether to allow one to relate two > processes together given a defined relation. This would be too early I > think for this version but it shows the direction of the thinking. > > The def is not supposed to yield an algorithm directly, but to clearly > and intuitively explain what this compliance def is checking for. The > algorithm one may use to check "observable compliance" should not a > brute force one from the def, and that's quite obvious to tell (you > could have infinitely many minimum-no-fault-...-completions). Also, > the definition is still being clarified. > > Also, the doc is clear that it allows many uses for abstract processes. > > Regarding partially defined processes as you describe them, my view is > like I explained at the F2F - which is pretty much what Satish's > e-mail says. I'm strongly against this because it hurts the > usefulness of abstract processes. > > regards, > Rania > > Danny van der Rijn wrote: > >> that is very close to the conclusion that i came to as well. except >> that i would prefer that different communities be able to define >> their own standard outside of the core spec. with conformance being >> one of those communities. i just don't get why conformance has >> special standing, especially given its infancy. >> >> Satish Thatte wrote: >> >>> What I heard before is that your customers want to omit anything ? >>> which is almost like an editor?s intermediate storage >>> representation. We don?t need to standardize that because it >>> doesn?t need to have any semantics beyond editing. >>> >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------ >>> >>> >>> From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] >>> Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 12:19 PM >>> To: Satish Thatte >>> Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org >>> 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 >>> <mailto: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 <mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>; >>>>> wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org <mailto:wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>; >>>>> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>> <mailto: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> >>>>> <mailto:dannyv@tibco.com> >>>>> To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com <mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com> >>>>> CC: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>> <mailto:wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>, >>>>> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org >>>>> <mailto:wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org> >>>>> References: <41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com> >>>>> <41507291.3010200@watson.ibm.com">mailto: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. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> >> 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]