We did not have a motion on BP-64 (after moving on to BP-65). As far as I
can tell, we asked Yoichi to check whether BP-64 still applies and revise
it if necessary.
(See attached file: 2009-01-21.txt)
Kind Regards
Dieter König
Senior Technical Staff Member, WebSphere Process Server Architect
IBM Software Group, Application and Integration Middleware Software
WSS Business Process Solutions
Phone: +49-7031-16-3426 IBM Deutschland (Embedded
image moved
to file:
pic12687.gif)
71032 Böblingen
Germany
IBM Deutschland
Research &
Development
GmbH /
Vorsitzender des
Aufsichtsrats:
Martin Jetter
Geschäftsführung:
Erich Baier
Sitz der
Gesellschaft:
Böblingen /
Registergericht:
Amtsgericht
Stuttgart, HRB
243294
Date: 31.01.2009 00:06
Subject: Re: [bpel4people] BPEL4People - Applying F2F Minutes
My memory of it is that since we voted on BP-65 after BP-64, we did not
re-visit BP-64 to vote given that BP-65 is given approval. I think that the
other issues following BP-65, we closed them.
At the time we moved onto BP-65, we left the BP-64 as was. That is, that I
would re-consider what's the problem is after re-reading the TaskProcessor
in Section 6 and come back to the next TC..
I think that my interpretation of how the BPEL4Peolle CD02 expects Tasks to
implement actual Human Tasks applications (by Web Services) seems to be
different from everyone's. I need to find out whether I am reading the
CD-02 somehow wrong or it can be read my way, then need to propose what to
do with BP-64, either re-state it or drop it.
Does it make sense?
Thanks,
Yoichi,
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoichi Takayama, PhD
Senior Research Fellow
RAMP Project
MELCOE (Macquarie E-Learning Centre of Excellence)
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY
Phone: +61 (0)2 9850 9073
Fax: +61 (0)2 9850 6527
www.mq.edu.au
www.melcoe.mq.edu.au/projects/RAMP/
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY: CRICOS Provider No 00002J
This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain
confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient, please
delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those
of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of Macquarie
E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE) or Macquarie University.
On 31/01/2009, at 9:08 AM, Dave Ings wrote:
2. The minutes do not record how we disposed of Yoichi's proposed
BP-64. We accepted BP-65, which was the need to provide a conceptual
architecture introduction (for new readers), and as part of the same
discussion thread we closed 66, 67 and 68 with no action. I can't
recall whether we (a) forgot to vote on closing 64, or forgot to
record the vote or (b) asked Yoichi to revisit the issue statement
for next TC given our acceptance of 65.
Anyone remember? My hunch is we meant to close it (having accepted
65) but forgot to conduct the vote.<2009-01-21.txt><pic12687.gif>