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

[<andrew.francis@mail.mcgill.ca>]

Hi Rania:

> Basically they're a specification of one's public
> behavior.

Good.

> I'm not sure what you mean by deploying an abstract
> process?

My way of saying one has derived a concrete BPEL
process from the abstract process. And I agree
with your explanation (deleted). Sorry the confusing
language.

>The literature abounds with definitions on
>bisumulation equivalence, tracing semantics, testing
>equivalence, public/private process projections
>based on petri nets, and so on.

Yes, and I thought the strawman seemed to borrow
from some of these concepts, such as using traces
to describe external observable behaviour.

> Now I'm trying to tackle the easier issues 107 on
> opacity first, 91, 97, and 99 (in parallel with 82
> (abstract proc def)). These are the issues that
>drove what's in the document you read today.

The group seems to be struck on the word "conformance"
as in "observational conformant." I just interpreted
that to be a variation of the concept of "observational
equivalency" which often used in the literature. That
is why I asked for a reference, so I can understand
terminology.

Thanks for the explanation.

Cheers,
Andrew