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

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

We should just call it validation and be done with it :-)

________________________________

From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com]
Sent: Sat 10/2/2004 1:57 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]



Dear Satish,

And of course I completely agree with you.  Just pointing out the formal
position we now find ourselves in.

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
 amfletcher@iee.org       (also tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com)

-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: 02 October 2004 05:05
To: Tony Fletcher; Monica J. Martin
Cc: Danny van der Rijn; rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]


Tony,

I really don't care what we call it but we clearly need to define the static
checks we mandate above and beyond the schema. 

Satish

________________________________


Dear Colleagues,

It seems to me that any discussion of conformance to the specification of
conformance to the (WS-BPEL 2.0) specification is now moot.  The TC decided
quite emphatically not accept my proposed issue which proposed to add
statements to the specification as to what artefacts can conform and what
those artefacts need to be / do to conform.  Thus conformance to the
specification is undefined and will deliberately remain so.  (And any claims
of conformance for anything to the WS-BPEL specification are meaningless, in
the sense that they can not verified or validated.)


 Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher

Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
 amfletcher@iee.org       (also tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com)


-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: 30 September 2004 00:27
To: Monica J. Martin
Cc: Danny van der Rijn; rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]


Monica,

I think conformance to the specification is a separate issue -- it is more
like validation beyond just schema and this is what I would like to see us
use Issue 84 to solve.

As we have discussed before, there are multiple notions of conformance
between abstract and executable.  We are not going to forbid people
inventing new notions of conformance, including even notions of conformance
between two abstract processes in a use case of successive refinement.

What we should do is define some salient notions of conformance in the
specification, especially those where we believe we can contribute
sufficient technical content to make it worthwhile.  I believe that
behavioral conformance definitely fits in the latter category since it is
non-trivial to define, to say the least.

I do not believe we will mandate any implementation level requirements for
abstract-executable conformance verification, such as monitored conformance,
but I am open to being educated.

Satish