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

[Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>]

rania-

if by "publically visible behavior" you mean that if i publish my BPEL 
file ("publicly visible") then i would agree.  but i think that it's a 
somewhat useless definition at that point. 

my understanding of "publicly visible behavior" was that it was the 
behavior that one can observe from an engine that is running stuff that 
i can't look at.  more like the definitions leading up to the observable 
conformance definitions.  in which case i disagree that this covers the 
templating (bad word in this case, maybe?) area of use cases that i 
would submit that yaron's example falls into.

danny

rkhalaf wrote:

> Hi,
>
> I think that "publicly visible behavior" covers both templating and 
> observable stuff because it's the behavior that you make visible to 
> the recipient of the file. In case of templating, that is the 
> template-filling-person and he/she sees the part of the behavior that 
> is expressed in this process. In the case of giving a description of 
> your behavior to a third party (to implement, or to know how to 
> interact with you etc) it's a complete description of what you will be 
> doing.
>
> Perhaps later in the spec we can have a use cases section similar to 
> the one in the circulated doc with templating and observable behavior 
> scenarios explicitly mentioned. Could also be touched on in 107, to 
> say "for example, in a templating scenario one would use opaque as an 
> explicit fill point" .
>
> -Rania
>
> Nickolas Kavantzas wrote:
>
>> 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.
>>
>>
>>
>> There are two definitions of an abstract process in the first page of 
>> the document.
>>
>> The first one is the first paragraph of the doc.
>>
>> The second one is A on the 'Semantics of AbsProcesses' section.
>> I am assuming that this is a potential use of an Abstract Process. So 
>> the text should then be:
>> A. An abstract process may describe the publicly visible behavior of 
>> the services exposed by the process....(rest of the text in A)
>>
>> The other potential use of an Abstract Process is for 'templating' 
>> and I would assume that this should be included in
>> this section too as B (put the text for that).
>>
>>
>> -- 
>> Nick
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 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; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; 
>>> 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>
>>> To:     rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com
>>> CC:     wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org, 
>>> wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
>>> References:     <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_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. 
>>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
> 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. 
>
>
>