Satish,
You are correct that one shouldn't bake in any specific methodology into
a langauge.
That is exactly why we propose not to!
Martin.
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
>Sent: 16 July 2004 06:20
>To:
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case
>
>
>I would add that in real scenarios external views are often
>linked with modeling requirements. A large company may
>specify a "required external view" in the form of an abstract
>process for its partners' processes without dictating how such
>a process is completed by the partners. The partners may need
>to take their required external view and use it as input into
>a modeling environment for completion and implementation in
>their own environments. However, it is extremely unlilely
>that the large company will dictate exactly how the process is
>to be completed by specifying the exact places where it must
>be extended. Each partner may of course complete and
>implement the process differently, so long as all maintain the
>externally visible contract specified by the abstract process.
>
>We would therefore be better off specifying the base techical
>notion of abstract processes as partial processes and we
>should avoid attempts to narrow the space of use cases artificially.
>
>Satish
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
>Sent: Thu 7/15/2004 9:41 PM
>To: Ashwini Surpur;
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case
>
>
>
>Aren't you confusing a use case with a set of "requirements"
>marked with "MUST"?
>
>I am not opposed to the use of abstract BPEL for supporting
>modeling tools, if it suits.
>
>I am opposed to structuring abstract BPEL in such a way that
>it is ONLY or PRIMARILY focused on supporting modeling tools.
>
>There are several reasons for this.
>
>1. This is inconsistent with the current spec which expresses
>the intentions of the original authors rather clearly, as well
>as the charter. All of these emphasize the public view aspect
>of abstract BPEL and it is not at all clear that the use of
>OPAQUE is suitable for that.
>
>2. The *technical* motivation for this push away from the
>original intentions is not clear -- it would be helpful to
>have that explained.
>
>3. At a technical level, we recognize that abstract processes
>are partially specified executable processes. One can provide
>an external view as a partially specified process by
>eliminating all unnecessary detail. One can also use the very
>same partial specification as the basis for representing
>intermediate states in a modeling exercise.
>
>In both cases you need a notion of faithful completion. I do
>not buy that faithful completion is a purely syntactic matter
>of specifying OPAQUE syntactic elements. This may be adequate
>for some narrow use cases but is clearly suboptimal for the
>technology as a whole.
>
>It is not, and has never been our charter to specifically
>address the requirements of (visual or other) tools for
>process modeling. I simply see no reason to bring that in as
>the canonical use case.
>
>It is time we moved beyond this. Let us use the call tomorrow
>to do so.
>
>Satish
>
>
>
>________________________________
>
>From: Ashwini Surpur [mailto:]
>Sent: Thu 7/15/2004 4:49 PM
>To:
>Subject: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case
>
>
>
>Hi,
>
>Here is a use case and some requirements that we feel should
>be satisfied. If needed, we can discuss this at tomorrow's conf call.
>
>Thanks,
>Ashwini
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
