- From: Ricky Ho <riho@cisco.com>
- Date: Sun, 02 Feb 2003 17:35:52 -0800
- To: Mayilraj Krishnan <mkrishna@cisco.com>
- Cc: public-ws-chor@w3.org
Thanks for your feedback ! Can you elaborate what do you mean by "dynamic behavior" ? Can you give me an example of an "external behavior" that you cannot be modelled in state transition diagram so that I can understand better why activity diagram is a better choice ? In a state transition diagram, every transition is either a "send message" or "receive message" to another party, which will have a "role" defined. I failed to say why "role" is unclear in state transition diagram. I guess I'm talking about the opposite. I think a "private process" is richer than a "public process". By taking away the "process variables", "conditions", a "private process" will become a "public process". Is that true ? Best regards, Ricky At 10:32 AM 2/2/2003 -0800, Mayilraj Krishnan wrote: >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 20:36:25 UTC