FW: [Fwd: Re: AW: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Orchestration, Choreography , and Composition]

[Gervas Douglas]

This is a message from Keith which got lost repeatedly in what is becoming an increasingly unreliable Yahoo Groups service.   Gervas Moderator http://www.aisl-services.com From: Keith Harrison-Broninski [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 28 July 2006 13:55 To: Gervas Douglas (gmail) Subject: [Fwd: Re: AW: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Orchestration, Choreography , and Composition]   This is the posting I've sent twice now without you seeing it as moderator ... ? K -------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: AW: [service-orientated-architecture] Re: Orchestration, Choreography , and Composition Date: Wed, 26 Jul 2006 10:05:47 +0100 From: Keith Harrison-Broninski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: service-orientated-architecture@yahoogroups.com References: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Steve Ross-Talbot wrote: it is my profound hope that abstract BPEL is what I have referred to in a prior posting as being our true EPP. What would make it even more powerful is if we can show that any process written in any language meets the abstract BPEL contract. Now that would be truly wonderful. But as yet I have not had bandwidth - nor has the Pi4 Technologies foundation - to investigate it further. But perhaps it can be done with others. I know the foundation would be happy to look into it. In other words, is Abstract BPEL "Turing-complete"?  Is it an universal language for description of computation analogous to Turing's ticker tape? Let's hope not - and you Steve, more than anyone, I should think, would not wish this to be true!  If it is true, the halting problem means we will never be able to say whether a particular process will continue executing forever or will stop within a finite period of time - which would rather put paid to your vision for using WS-CDL and Abstract BPEL in conjunction as a formal means of guaranteeing executable behaviour, wouldn't it. On a related note, is this discussion starting to make it clear to anyone that "processes" as expressed in WS-CDL, BPEL, et al, are nothing at all different to "programs"?  A small number of writer/consultants, in particular Martyn Ould and myself, have been trying to promote a wider definition of "process" for some years now, that includes various forms of collaborative behaviour which underpin working life yet are not programmatic. The mental model we tend to bump up against is that people dealing with business process definition are usually techies, and thus see all processes as simply procedural control flow structures (or if you're really lucky, slightly more object-oriented "swimlanes").   This is very far from capturing the reality of what actually goes on in the workplace. So I conceive of Orchestration, Choreography, and Composition in a somewhat different fashion from the views generally expressed in this group - though the relationship is a complementary one, since I'm simply trying to loosen shackles, and I support (for instance) WS-CDL as a means of describing certain automatable forms of collaborative behaviour. --   All the best Keith   http://keith.harrison-broninski.info __._,_.___ SPONSORED LINKS Computer software Computer security software Computer software program Computer fax software Computer virus software YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS  Visit your group "service-orientated-architecture" on the web.    To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:  [EMAIL PROTECTED]    Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. __,_._,___