[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Example for how compensation relates to WS-T (BA)
There is a call on Monday between the issues process volunteers to discuss the issues process. I updated the issues process document based on discussions with several members of the group. It is now available in the document repository at: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/download.php/2628/issues process.htm. Yaron > -----Original Message----- > From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:39 PM > To: Assaf Arkin > Cc: edwink@collaxa.com; Yuzo Fujishima; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Example for how compensation relates to WS-T (BA) > > > > BTW do we have an issues process so we can start raising issues > agains > > the spec and track them? > > Jeff, Dieter and Yaron own this. I have not seen any announcements > except that there will be an update on 6/25. > > Satish > > -----Original Message----- > From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com] > Sent: Friday, June 20, 2003 3:16 PM > To: Satish Thatte > Cc: edwink@collaxa.com; Yuzo Fujishima; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Example for how compensation relates to WS-T (BA) > > Satish Thatte wrote: > > >These are all great questions. Let us start with interoperability, > >before we sink into the morass of minimality ;-) > > > >I believe that a combination of abstract processes with WSDL (1.1 or > >1.2) should provide an elementary level of predictability of external > >behavior that I would characterize as the focus of interoperability. > >Here we need to find some way (including another dependency) to address > >issues regarding policies for reliability and security, among others, > >although the protocols required are defined elsewhere. > > > +1 > > One of the issues we have is the need to introduce some minimal set of > policies that would be defined as part of the process/abstract/interface > > to ensure interoperability. That ties to the other questions on my list. > > >For both executable processes and abstract processes, we will need an > >operational semantics that unambiguously defined behavior without > >relying on interpretations of the English text in the spec. This is > the > >other side of predictability, not of externally facing behavior but of > >executable behavior. > > > +1 > > BTW do we have an issues process so we can start raising issues agains > the spec and track them? > > arkin > > > > >Satish > > > > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org > For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]