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.
