OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


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


Am I missing something here?? Tony's conformance proposal and the one in 
the abstract process unfortunately share the same English word 
"conformance" but are completely unrelated.



Tony wants to recap all the restrictions in the spec into one section 
that reiterates what it means for a BPEL process to conform to the 
specification . The one in the abstract process doc is about an 
executable artifact having the same externally visible behavior as an 
abstract process.

I do not see how these two discussions found their convergence in this 
thread.

r

Satish Thatte wrote:
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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]