W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > February 2003

Re: Same model for both Public and Private process ??

From: Mayilraj Krishnan <mkrishna@cisco.com>
Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 10:32:58 -0800
Message-Id: <4.3.2.7.2.20030202102521.00b5e0e8@wells.cisco.com>
To: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org

Ricky

Even though the state transition diagram can represent the dynamic behavior,
the activity diagram could be the better choice for describing the external 
behavior.
(public or abstract process). You can represent the roles clearly.
In case you want to represent the dynamic behavior of operation you could 
choose
either activity or state transition diagram (Whether you want to put 
emphasis on the
control of flow on activity or state).
Yes you are correct. If you remove the dynamic properties like transitions, 
process variables
from the state machines (activity or transition diagram) then it becomes 
private process that you
can model it using flowchart.

Thanks
Mayilraj
At 10:52 PM 2/1/2003 -0800, Ricky Ho wrote:

>I have some confusion as described below ...
>
>"Private process" is providing an internal implementation view of a party 
>in a long running business interaction when the party is implementing its 
>behavior using orchestration engine.  "Private process" is about 
>specifying the activities he takes in responding to an event (which can be 
>receive a particular message or send a particular message).  The process 
>variables, routing decisions... etc, describe the detail implementation 
>logic is clearly specified.  The modeling language (e.g. BPEL, BPML) is 
>semantically equivalent to a flow chart.
>
>"Public process" is providing an external view of a party in a long 
>running business interaction regardless of whether that party is 
>implementing his behavior using an orchestration engine.  Public process 
>is about specifying all possible states of that party.  And then for each 
>state, what events are legitimate (event can be receive a particular 
>message or send a particular message) ?  And after that, what is all the 
>"possible" next states ?  The major difference is "public process" is NOT 
>to describe which route to take under what conditions.  Instead, it 
>describe what are the possibilities.  It seems to me a "state transition 
>diagram" is a natural fit to describe the "public process".
>
>Therefore, I have a question if the "public process" should be based on a 
>completely different model (a "state transition diagram") than the 
>"private process" (a "flow chart diagram").  Correct me if I 
>misunderstand, it seems HP's WS-Conversation-Language is taking this approach.
>
>But I also hear that "public process" can be described as a subset of a 
>"private process".  If you take out the "process variable", "assign 
>statements", and the "conditions" in the switch blocks and loops ... etc 
>from the "private process", then you will have the "public process".  In 
>other words, public process can be just use the same model of "private 
>process".  It seems WSCI and BPEL-private process is taking this approach.
>
>I also heard that the "flow-chart" is equivalent to "state diagram".  They 
>are just a dual-representation to each other.
>
>Any comments and thoughts ... ?
>
>Best regards,
>Ricky
>
Received on Sunday, 2 February 2003 13:35:36 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:29:54 UTC