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

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.
 
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:]
Sent: Thu 9/23/2004 8:57 PM
To: ; ; 
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 <> <mailto:> 	
To: 		
CC: 	, 	
References: 	<> <">mailto:> 	




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.