Edwin Khodabakchian wrote:
>Sazi,
>
>I think that Frank L. stated it well in one of his previous emails: the goal
>of BPEL over time is to create a congruent view between the design
>representation of a process, it executable representation and the
>monitoring/reporting representation. Some views might have more details but
>the overlapping views should be isomorphic.
>
>This is not black and white: the closer we are to that goal, the better of
>we are. Over time, as we get more deployment under our belt and better
>understand the patterns, we should expect that the language will evolve to
>continuously get closer. A little bit like HTML.
>
>
mm1: Can we relate this case to several related issues (formalism,
visual notation, etc)?
>Edwin
>
>
>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Sazi Temel [mailto:]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:29 PM
>>To: Monica Martin; John Evdemon
>>Cc:
>>Subject: RE: [wsbpel-uc] Conf Call today at 4 PM ET / 1 PM PT
>>
>>
>>I think we should also include some usage scenarios that is
>>not limited to the BPEL as language only. The following case
>>(originally from Yaron Goland) explains what I mean.
>>
>>Portable Execution or Portable Source?
>>--------------------------------------
>>- User A writes a BPEL using their favorite tool Tool_A
>>- User A uses a typical programming construct not provided in
>>BPEL like for-each or if-then or until
>>- Tool A translates the programming construct into a form
>>supported by BPEL
>>- User A hands their BPEL to User B to edit.
>>- User B tries to edit the BPEL using their favorite tool, Tool_B
>>- User B is confused because a lot of the BPEL code looks
>>weird, what has happened is that Tool_B doesn't encode the
>>programming constructs the same way Tool_A has so Tool_B
>>can't represent the constructs in their higher level semantic
>>(e.g. as a for-each) and instead has to show a ton of strange
>>BPEL code with counters and lots of fancy XPATHs etc.
>>
>>The purpose of this usage scenario is to explore whether the
>>purpose of BPEL is to provide portable execution or portable
>>human readable source code. At this time, without going into
>>detail, I will only mention that there are different
>>implications for BPEL depending on the answer [ a) provide
>>portable execution, b) provide portable source code or c) both ]
>>
>>Regards,
>>.Sazi
>>
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Monica Martin [mailto:]
>>Sent: Tuesday, August 12, 2003 7:35 AM
>>To: John Evdemon
>>Cc:
>>Subject: Re: [wsbpel-uc] Conf Call today at 4 PM ET / 1 PM PT
>>
>>
>>John Evdemon wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Hello all,
>>>
>>>This is a quick reminder about our conf call today at 4 PM
>>>
>>>
>>ET / 1 PM PT.
>>
>>
>>>Here is the call-in information:
>>>
>>>Toll-Free (US and Canada): +1 866 500 6738
>>>Toll: +1 203 480 8000
>>>Passcode: 600345
>>>
>>>Here is a quick agenda for today's discussion:
>>>
>>>1. Discussion of Sally's template (UC Template is attached - the
>>>website appears to still be down)
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>mm1: I have provided comments to Sally.
>>
>>
>>
>>>2. Usage scenario guidelines and catalogue (see attached docs from
>>>Harvey)
>>>
>>>3. Discussion/selection of initial usage scenario - I would
>>>
>>>
>>like us to
>>
>>
>>>prep a nomination to the TC
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>mm1: On items #2 and #3, the catalog appears to largely
>>concentrate on B2B. Should we not approach this from a
>>broader scope that also includes the enterprise, as we
>>develop the usage scenarios and use cases? In addition, the
>>addition of legal entity language seems premature, as we have
>>acknowledge this is possibly an area outside of the scope of BPEL.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
