+1.
> It is not, and has never been our charter to specifically
> address the requirements of (visual or other) tools for
> process modeling.
Not only that, but I am not aware of any such requirements coming from
visual tool vendors. I am a member of the BPMN group (which includes
many visual modeling tools vendors) and never have I heard so far
abstract BPEL being even mentioned in our discussions.
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, July 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
>
>
>
>
>
