Hi
David,
Good
thoughts ! I assume that by Visual Extensions you mean the visual
representations ( icons and such like ) to depict the BPEL
constructs.
I
wonder if this should be a part of the specification though ? For
instance, we have created an internal POC that uses a UML Profile to model
the constructs - seems to work I guess.
My
feeling is that tool vendors will prefer to create their own visual
interpretations of the BPEL artifacts. On the flip side, I feel, if we do insist
on standardization, then UML seems to be the best bet.
Regards,
Rajesh.
-----Original Message-----
From: Burdett, David
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003
4:47 PM
To: 'Tony Andrews'; Burdett, David; WS BPEL
(E-mail)
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] A Topic for the
F2F?
Tony
Thanks for the comments, I agree, that "Business Process Execution
Language" is a bit of a misnomer and perhaps it should be simply called a
"Process Execution Language" ... but let's not go there
...
As
far as including the Visual Binding extensions in BPEL natively is concerned I
think we can actually separate the work into two parts:
1.
Identify WHAT additional information needs to be held to identify the
graphical information, and
2.
Design HOW to represent that information. At this point we can choose to
include it within the BPEL language or have a separate language. We can also
decide whether it goes in the same spec e.g. in an Appendix or in a separate
spec.
The
point is that we do not have to decide immediately HOW to specify
it.
David
-----Original Message-----
From: Tony Andrews
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 22, 2003 4:33
PM
To: Burdett, David; WS BPEL (E-mail)
Subject: RE:
[wsbpel] A Topic for the F2F?
I just wanted to comment on your first assumption
below. The "business protocol" extensions in BPEL are very much about
describing behavior, as opposed to execution. A BPEL abstract process
definition is a useful description of behavior regardless of how the
service is implemented. I would even argue that "business protocol" may be
an unfortunate name for this given that we're really talking
about services in a more general sense. The two usage styles
- "executable processes" and "business protocols" can each be used
independently or together as appropriate.
Regarding your real point, I wonder if a set of
standard annotations and extensions within the BPEL document itself would be
sufficient. Separating these into different documents seems troubling to
me.
Tony
From: Burdett, David
[mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, May 22,
2003 3:45 PM
To: WS BPEL (E-mail)
Subject: [wsbpel] A
Topic for the F2F?
Here's a topic I
would like to suggest for discussion at the F2F.
THE
PROBLEM
The problem
arises because of three assumptions that I believe are
valid:
1. BPEL is an
"execution only" language, i.e. it is desgined to be something that can be
input into software and run, e.g. using some "BPEL Run Time"
software
2. BPEL will
often be defined and maintained with the aid of some GUI based "BPEL Design
Time" software that allows the process to be visualised.
3. The BPEL Design Time software will
contain additional positional and graphical information about the visual
representation of the BPEL design that not contained in the BPEL XML
definitions.
The problem is
that this means that exporting a BPEL definition from one BPEL Design Time
for input into another will result in a BPEL definition that will not be
easily editable as all the graphical information would be lost.
In the extreme,
for a complex design, it could mean that designer of business processes
using BPEL is effectively locked into the BPEL Design Time software provider
that they initially choose. This I don't think is a good
idea.
THE SOLUTION
?
To solve this
problem I would like to suggest the setting up of a sub-committe of the TC
that has responsibilty for developing a "BPEL Visual Binding" specification
which would contain the relevant visual information from the BPEL Design
Time. The idea would be that the Visual Binding specification is
a separate document to the main BPEL
specification. Also BPEL Design Time Implementations could export
either:
1. The BPEL XML
Definition alone, or
2. The BPEL
XML Definition PLUS the BPEL Visual Binding
The former could
be used for input to a BPEL Run Time and the latter could be input into some
other BPEL Design Time.
By creating a
separate, but related, specification, it should be possible to carry out the
work on the BPEL Visual Binding specifcation in parallel, without hindering
any work on the main BPEL specification.
Regards
David
Director, Product Management, Web
Services
Commerce One
4440
Rosewood Drive, Pleasanton, CA 94588, USA
Tel/VMail: +1 (925) 520 4422;
Cell: +1 (925) 216 7704
mailto:; Web: http://www.commerceone.com
