RE: [wsbpel] Example for how compensation relates to WS-T (BA)

["Yaron Y. Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

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
>
>