So how do they refer to things like order? Using pseudo qnames for the
schemas?
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, September 24, 2004 8:25 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc:
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
i was hoping that i misunderstood the intent. i bothered to be so
detailed so someone could point out the error in my misunderstanding.
as far as a list of features, no i don't have one. they are just
omitting what they please and providing what they find to be usefully
portable. but a concrete example of that that i do know is that they
are leaving out specifics of the WSDLs. "you receive an order here, and
you send a confirmation response." that's all that you need to know at
that point. not what a line item looks like. not even what an order
looks like.
Satish Thatte wrote:
>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_workgr
oup.php.
>
>
>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_workgr
oup.php.
>
>
>
>
