[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues
Thanks Ron/Jeff, your point is taken. Nevertheless I think that we should target for producing backward compatible specifications as much as possible, and calling the OASIS versions as 1.1 would be a good starting point. -- Sanjay > -----Original Message----- > From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] > Sent: Wednesday, Sep 26, 2007 0:06 AM > To: Ron Ten-Hove > Cc: Patil, Sanjay; Mike Edwards; Anish Karmarkar; Ashok > Malhotra; Bryan Aupperle; David Booz; Blohm, Henning; Martin > Chapman; Michael Rowley; opencsa-ms@lists.oasis-open.org; > Simon Holdsworth > Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues > > > On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Ron Ten-Hove wrote: > > > Sanjay, > > > > I believe Jeff was referring to the WS-BPEL TC, not the > SCA BPEL > > WG. As a witness to that TC's debates, I can attest that his > > description is accurate. > > that's correct. > -jeff > > > > --Ron > > > > Patil, Sanjay wrote: > >> Some clarification: AFAICT, The SCA BPEL TC did not have > any lengthy > >> debate about picking 1.1 Vs 2.0 numbering for the OASIS revision. > >> Rather, the issue about version numbering was noted and quickly > >> tabled > >> with the assumption that the version numbering issue applies to > >> all the > >> Open CSA TCs and should be resolved elsewhere in a > consistent manner. > >> > >> Personally, I prefer that we start with calling the OASIS > >> revisions of > >> the SCA specifications as version 1.1 and possibly bump up the > >> version > >> number to 2.0 before finalization in case we end up making backward > >> incompatible changes. > >> > >> -- Sanjay > >> > >> > >>> -----Original Message----- > >>> From: Jeff Mischkinsky > [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] Sent: > >>> Monday, Sep 24, 2007 20:37 PM > >>> To: Mike Edwards > >>> Cc: Anish Karmarkar; Ashok Malhotra; Bryan Aupperle; David Booz; > >>> Blohm, Henning; Martin Chapman; Michael Rowley; opencsa- > >>> ms@lists.oasis-open.org; Patil, Sanjay; Simon Holdsworth > >>> Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues > >>> > >>> > >>> On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Mike Edwards wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>> Anish, > >>>> > >>>> Thanks for bringing these items forward. > >>>> > >>>> I have a suggestion of how to deal with these items and > similar > >>>> items in the short run. I suspect > >>>> that what I suggest will form part of the long run > process anyway. > >>>> > >>>> These items should be placed onto the Agenda of upcoming > >>>> meetings of each TC by the chair(s) > >>>> of those TCs, with the aim of getting each TC to make a > >>>> decision. In order to do this, each item must > >>>> be couched in terms of a definitive recommendation that can be > >>>> adopted. > >>>> > >>>> Issue 2 below is in the right form. > >>>> > >>>> Issue 1 below is more of a discussion. Here is a proposal: > >>>> > >>>> ------- > >>>> > >>>> Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs? > >>>> > >>>> To avoid confusion, all the initial specifications produced by > >>>> the SCA TCs belonging to the Open CSA MS > >>>> will be given the label "Version 1.1". > >>>> > >>> ok, let the naming debate begin. :-) > >>> > >>> We (ORCL) discussed this issue internally and came to the > >>> tentative conclusion that we should probably call these 2.0, > >>> unless it does in fact turn out that ALL of the specs > will be be > >>> backward compatible with the 1.0 versions. Obviously we > have our > >>> doubts that will be the ultimate outcome. > >>> FWIW, it was noted that the BPEL TC went through a similar > >>> lengthy debate and finally settled on 2.0. > >>> > >>> That said, I suspect that it is probably premature to decide on > >>> a name. We should wait until we are much closer to > "release" and > >>> have a better understanding of the diffs that are adopted. So > >>> how about we pick just pick a code name (its more fun to have a > >>> code name contest than to argue about 1.1 vs. 2.0 :-) > >>> The winner gets a free copy. > >>> > >>> cheers, > >>> jeff > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>>> This will enable all the specifications to be clearly related > >>>> to each other and also to be distinguished from > >>>> the Version 1.0 SCA specifications published by the Open SOA > >>>> collaboration in March 2007. > >>>> > >>>> ------- > >>>> > >>>> Now all that is required is to get each TC to adopt the > >>>> resolution for each of these issues. > >>>> > >>>> The real liaison will begin if and when TCs disagree about the > >>>> resolution ;-) > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Yours, Mike. > >>>> > >>>> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO. > >>>> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, > >>> Great Britain. > >>> > >>>> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 > >>>> Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> > >>>> 24/09/2007 18:30 > >>>> > >>>> To > >>>> opencsa-ms@lists.oasis-open.org > >>>> cc > >>>> "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>, Mike Edwards/UK/ > >>>> IBM@IBMGB, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, Ashok > >>>> Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, David Booz > >>>> <booz@us.ibm.com>, Michael Rowley <mrowley@bea.com>, "Blohm, > >>>> Henning" > >>> <henning.blohm@sap.com>, > >>>> Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>, Simon > Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB > >>>> Subject > >>>> [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Open CSA SC, > >>>> > >>>> The SCA BPEL TC has two issues, which were discussed > during the > >>>> recently > >>>> concluded F2F, that require coordination across all SCA TCs. > >>>> Since there > >>>> is no official liaison mechanism set up, on behalf of SCA > >>> BPEL TC I'm > >>> > >>>> bringing these issues to the attention of the Open CSA SC. I > >>>> would like > >>>> to request the SC to coordinate this across all the SCA TCs. > >>>> > >>>> Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs? > >>>> > >>>> Should the version of the SCA specs be 2.0 or 1.x? Or > >>> something else? > >>> > >>>> It is certainly possible to have the assembly specification > >>> be version > >>> > >>>> 2.0 and BPEL C&I specification version that depends on > >>> assembly 2.0 be > >>> > >>>> 1.5, for example. But such version numbers will be very > >>>> confusing. Given > >>>> that the TCs are affiliated with the Open CSA MS, a > better approach > >>>> would be to have the same version number for all the > initial output > >>>> specifications of the various SCA TC. If not, at the very > >>> least, have > >>> > >>>> the number before the "." be the same. This will require > >>> coordination > >>> > >>>> and agreement across all the TCs. > >>>> > >>>> Issue 2: Use of RFC 2119 keywords in the spec > >>>> > >>>> In aligning the spec with the OASIS template and accepting the > >>>> OASIS TAB > >>>> recommendations, the SCA BPEL TC decided to use the RFC > >>> 2119 keywords > >>> > >>>> along with the following restriction: > >>>> a) All RFC 2119 keywords will be of the uppercase form (for > >>>> example, RFC > >>>> 2119 keywords MUST be capitalized) > >>>> b) use of lowercase 2119 keywords will not be used in > the spec. > >>>> When the > >>>> use of 2119 keyword is needed, without having the > implications wrt > >>>> conformance, a suitable synonym will be found. > >>>> c) RFC 2119 defines keywords that are synonyms of each other. For > >>>> example 'SHALL' and 'MUST' mean the same thing. The TC > >>> decided to not > >>> > >>>> use multiple forms to mean the same. Therefore the TC > decided to > >>>> use > >>>> 'MUST' instead of 'SHALL' and 'MUST NOT' instead of > 'SHALL NOT' > >>>> through > >>>> out the spec. > >>>> Please note that the use of RFC 2119 keywords affect conformance. > >>>> Consistency across the SCA spec with respect to conformance > >>> and the > >>>> use > >>>> of normative conformance lanaguage is highly desirable. > >>>> > >>>> Please let me know if you have any questions. > >>>> > >>>> Thanks and regards. > >>>> > >>>> -Anish Karmarkar > >>>> SCA BPEL TC co-chair on behalf of SCA BPEL TC > >>>> -- > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> Unless stated otherwise above: > >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales > >>>> with number 741598. > >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, > >>>> Hampshire PO6 3AU > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>> -- > >>> Jeff Mischkinsky > >>> jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com > >>> Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services > Standards +1 > >>> (650) 506-1975 > >>> Consulting Member Technical Staff > >>> 500 Oracle Parkway, M/ S 4OP9 > >>> Oracle > >>> Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > >>> > >>> > >>> > >>> > > > > -- > > Sun's Open ESB Community (http://open-esb.org) > > > > -- > Jeff Mischkinsky > jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com > Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards +1(650) > 506-1975 > Consulting Member Technical Staff > 500 Oracle Parkway, M/ > S 4OP9 > Oracle > Redwood Shores, CA 94065 > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]