Defintion of a simple process

• From: Charlie Abela <abcharl@keyworld.net>
• Date: Thu, 9 Sep 2004 21:37:27 +0200
• To: "Public-Sws-Ig@W3. Org" <public-sws-ig@w3.org>
• Message-ID: <LEENJGJEOPHDHGJIBIDAAEMPCBAA.abcharl@keyworld.net>

Hi,

A simple process is defined as being an abstraction of an atomic or
composite one.
When defining such a process, it is still possible to define some of the
internal structure of a composite service, right?
For example:
Suppose that a composite service A has the following workflow defined:

<composite A>
	<sequence>
		<service B>
		<service C>
	</sequence>
</composite A>

and service B is atomic while C is composite

<composite C>
	<if-then-else>
		<condition>
			<service D>
		<else>
			<service E>
	</if-then-else>
</composite C>

Now

A Simple service representation X, for the above would be something like:

<simpleprocess X>
	<expandsTo>
		<service A>
	</expandsTo>
</simpleprocess X>

What if I want to expose the other subtasks in this abstract form as well?
How would I do that? Basically the idea is to have a short representation of
the workflow represented in the process model.

Any help is appreciated.

Regards

Charlie

Received on Thursday, 9 September 2004 19:37:38 UTC