RE: [wsbpel-abstract] Potential requirements and use case

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

+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:satisht@microsoft.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, July 15, 2004 9:41 PM
> To: Ashwini Surpur; wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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:Ashwini.Surpur@oracle.com]
> Sent: Thu 7/15/2004 4:49 PM
> To: wsbpel-abstract@lists.oasis-open.org
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
>