I don't understand the distinction you are drawing when you write
"guidance or compatibility between the abstract and one of the adjoining
executable processes rather than conformance".
-----Original Message-----
From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:]
Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2004 8:48 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: Danny van der Rijn; ;
Subject: Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]
Satish Thatte wrote:
>Monica,
>
>What I meant to highlight is that conformance means one thing in a
template-like use case ("at least those indicated by the abstract
process") and in "behavioral interfaces" meant to describe externally
observable behavior ("exactly those indicated by the abstract process").
They are variants of conformance, but each should be precisely defined
when used in a certain context. For instance, vertical industry
standards may well choose to use behavioral interfaces to describe the
behavior of each party in an industry standard exchange pattern for
business messages, and in that case behavioral conformance (of the kind
that we started to define using minimal no-fault completions) would
apply.
>
>Satish
>
>
mm1: I think part of my original question applies and your response
infers the latter (It is left to the 'context' of the vertical industry,
for example). This appears to be guidance or compatibility between the
abstract and one of the adjoining executable processes rather than
conformance?
