Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

>>mm1: Please, use the word 'conformance.' Compliance is most often a
>>regulatory, mandatory requirement that has legal implications on
>>software performance. I believe in the context of this discussion
>>conformance, not compliance applies. They are very different things.
>>    
>>
>Francis: This is sounds like legalease. To use the language of object oriented
>programming, the abstract process defines a "contract." I would imagine that
>if one deploys an abstract process I publish, this is a programmatic
>way of saying, "at a technical level, if you honour the contract - my
>choreography engine will execute the associated application specific
>information (i.e, process the order). If you don't honour the contract -
>I will probably return some sort of error."
>
mm1: Compliance raises the bar on an implementation, Andrew. Unless we 
are predisposed to have a formal certification program to verify the 
software functionality and issue some recognition of that, compliance 
does not apply. This is outside of the 'technical' contract. An example 
is HIPAA where certification is required through a series of tests with 
verifiable results before production. It is a mandate through government 
regulation.