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

["Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Colleagues,

Yes, Rania is essentially correct.  My proposed issue (that was not agreed)
was concerned with clearly stating in the BPEL specification firstly what
can conform to the specifications - XML documents of various sorts, engines,
anything else we agreed on, and then what the conformance criteria are for
each of those artefacts (by reference to the parts of the specification
relevant to them).  It would have called for the conformance of abstract
process XML documents (for instance) to the specification to be addressed,
if abstract processes are included.  So it was concerned with the
conformance of artefacts to the specification.

I hope people were not confused about this when the voted against this
issue, but it was not at all intended to address the questions of the
conformance of one artefact to another artefact.  Nor was it intended
therefore to get it to the 'mathematics'' of conformance of one thing to
another.

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: rkhalaf [mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com] 
Sent: 04 October 2004 16:31
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Tony Fletcher; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
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_work
> group.php.