[ebBP] 5/7/2004: Opening of Vote for Work Items!

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Discussion|OASIS.ebBP.Notification for Vote;
Topic|;
Point|Opening Votes on WI-12, 43-66 and 44-57;
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200404/msg00136.html;
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00072.html;
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00073.html;
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/download.php/6054/ebbp-mtgMinutes-032204.txt;
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00113.html;
Attachment|http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200404/msg00125.html;
Attachment|Summary: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00106.html;

mm1@
Everyone, below is the text for the votes that will open today on WI-12, 
43-66 and 44-57. The vote will open 7 May 2004 and close late 14 May 2004.
Notice of upcoming votes was sent 30 April 2004: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200404/msg00136.html.
The vote has been opened to all TC members particularly since some of 
these items have been significantly commented on by Observers to the TC.
Please take the time to review the references and cast your vote on or 
before 14 May 2004.

=============================================================================
WI-12 WSDL Support
We engaged in a straw poll earlier in the month. The same ballot will be 
opened to finalize a decision.

Vote Text:
What option do you prefer for v2.0 for WSDL support? This does not 
preclude future enhancements in v3.0.

    * Operation Activity (See references in description [a.][b.])
    * Use of a constrained or new business transaction pattern (See
      references in description [c.] )
    * Other option will be enabled.

References:
[a.] Dubray WSDL proposal explanation: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00072.html
[b.] Summary proposal provided by M. Martin:
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00073.html
[c.] Meeting minutes from 22 and 29 March 2004 meetings (see comments 
from Anders Tell):
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/ebxml-bp/download.php/6054/ebbp-mtgMinutes-032204.txt
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00113.html
(See attached 29 March meeting minutes to calendar notice or under 
Documens, Calendar Documents).

Original Work Item 12:
Should the BPSS provide the capability to import and use another BPS 
definition?

=============================================================================
WI-43 Name and Name ID
In the informal F2F, the team present on the phone and in the meeting 
recommended adoption of Solution 2 with amendment (posted by Nagahashi 
26 April 2004).

Vote text:
Do you agree that:

The BPSS SHOULD support the use document-scoped nameID attribute for 
reference solution (Solution 2) with the distributed amendment:

Type of NameID attribute is xsd:ID. This means nameID is 
Document-scoped, irrelevant to package structure. The NameID is 
document-scoped, regardless of package structure. Since NameID is 
document-scoped, no qualified identifier syntax is required. The NameID 
MUST be used for reference purposes.

The Name attribute MAY be mandatory. Name attribute MAY be unique within 
a BPSS document. The use of Name attribute is used by CPPA v2.0 to 
reference BPSS elements. The Name SHOULD NOT be used by other BPSS 
elements for reference purposes. The Name type is xsd:string and 
arbitrary text is allowed.

Use cases for visualization, CPPA and another identified requirements 
will dictate whether or not the Name is required. Whether or not the 
Name is mandatory or optional will be further investigated. At this 
time, the Name attribute SHOULD be required.

The technical specification SHOULD clearly specify the use of Name and 
NameID. In addition, a implementor's note or hint SHOULD be given to 
ensure care is taken to make NameID unique within a document (such as 
embedding package name in NameID).

References:
[a.] Nagahashi update with Solution 2 amendment, 26 April 2004: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200404/msg00125.html
XML examples are provided in this reference .pdf.

Original Work Item 43:
In the BPSS Schema v1.01 and v1.1 elements can be reference either by 
their name or their ID (or GUID). Seems one is redundant and ID's 
(GUIDs) normally used to reference other elements. Do GUID's help XML 
parsers? Use of GUID and GUIDREF could lead to processing errors. 
Identify or recommend if acceptable for CPPA or allow them to also 
decide on this (for CPA negotiation). Given resolve, specify explicitly 
if the scope of global uniqueness for GUIDREF.

=============================================================================
WI-44-57 White space
In the informal F2F we discussed that it may be practical and advised to 
allow the errors to occur than constrain them in ebBP.

Vote text: No constraints SHOULD be placed on the xsd: string. These 
constraints SHOULD be handled by an implementation detail, and if found 
to err, raise an error.

The technical specification SHOULD provide a warning or implementor's 
hint about this possible condition. If appropriate, this hint SHOULD be 
referenced in descriptive text in the technical specification and any 
well-formedness rules referenced that may assist in ease of development.

References:
[a.] Summary: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/ebxml-bp/200403/msg00106.html

Original Work Item 44 and 57:
Constraints on white space - Should constraints be placed on the use of 
xsd:string in usage in BPSS or left to implementation and deployment?
Define what facets, if any should be used on the data types used on all 
or specific BPSS elements. In XSD, the xsd:string can use preserve, 
collapse and replace whitespace facets to ensure consistency. What 
should the BPSS use?

@mm1