Re: [tamie] Updates on lts xml for input to script compiler, some questions about monitoring for condition guard values...

[Stephen Green <stephen.green@documentengineeringservices.com>]

But as they say "the devil is in the detail": what do we mean, and what
does the process definition mean, by "the transitions". For instance, does
it include:

1. document included in definition actually conforms to the definition of the
document as defined in the business process definition

2. signals - that these match the definition of their structure (schema
valid) as specified in the business process definition

3. timetoperform - looks like this one is clear if time to perform is
included in "occur in accordance with the conditions"

etc

I'm guessing that we are use case #3 is including 3. and more but not,
perhaps, 1. and 2. ??? Or is validation of the documents and signals in
scope for uc3?

2009/3/21 Moberg Dale <dmoberg@axway.com>:
> That the transitions that do occur are in accordance with the ones that
> are specified as being allowed to occur, and that these transitions
> occur in accordance with the conditions (Boolean propositional functions
> over events) that need to be true for those transitions to occur.
>
Stephen Green:
>
>
> But what is it about these LTS states, etc (the subset extracted
> from process definition) which need to be tested/monitored?
> The sequence? That the messages conform to these states?
>
> 2009/3/20 Moberg Dale <dmoberg@axway.com>:
>> Stephen writes many questions:
>>
>> I'm still a little in the dark about what aspects of the ebBP's
>> definition of a process are intended to be tested or monitored
>> with TaMIE/eTSM. The exercise of thinking what a conformance
>> profile (perhaps expressed as test assertions) might look like
>> if the ebBP definition was written as a conformance profile, such
>> an exercise might help determine what the eTSM script would
>> have to test. Then it's a mapping exercise to match those eTSM
>> features to the profile and thence to the ebBP. Then it's a matter
>> of generalising this, etc.
>>
>> So: Q1. an ebBP says what about a process? and Q2. which (if not
>> all) of those things (things=assertions, if you will) is to be of
>> interest to the script writer/generator?
>> Q1. what assertions does an ebBP definition make about an endpoint,
> etc
>>
>> <dm>ebBP would not exactly make assertions about endpoints in the URL
>> sense of that term, but only about the roles and business transactions
>> among whatever occupies those roles (CPPA calls them parties)
> Endpoints
>> used by the parties might differ for different parts of the business
>> collaboration
>>
>> But putting aside these fine points, the ebBP instance is mainly
>> providing a subset of information that is extracted from it and placed
>> into the LTS. The LTS is written out as a bunch of states that can
>> transition to other states under certain conditions (their "labels").
>>
>> For starters, the label languages are restricted to the document
>> envelope language and the condition guard language and the XPath2
>> language. The states are the BusinessTransactionActivites, which are
>> particular ways of carrying out what is described in the
>> BusinessTransaction (a kind of reusable pattern of interaction). Each
>> BusinessTransaction has a structure that could be captured in a UML
>> sequence diagrams involving documents exchanged and signals that may
> or
>> may not be produced.
>>
>> There are also "gateways" that glue together states in various
>> collaboration patterns, such as Transition, Fork, Join, and Decision.
>> There are certain modifiers such as "waitForAll" on Join (which means
>> that all conditions must be true before transitioning to the next
> state)
>> or "type" on Fork (which can be XOR or OR).
>>
>> Beyond this transition information, see the specification or the
> schema
>> and look at attribute groups such as documentSecurity and quality or
> the
>> element, TimeToPerform. These information items indicate QOS aspects
>> that are specified for the business collaboration. They are not part
> of
>> process, narrowly understood, but are part of the ebBP specification
> for
>> business processes.
>>
>> I will have to get to your other questions in a different block of
> time.
>> </dm>
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Stephen D. Green
>
> Document Engineering Services Ltd
>
>
>
> http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice
>



-- 
Stephen D. Green

Document Engineering Services Ltd



http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matthew+22:37 .. and voice