OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] RE: Requirements and Scope Documents?


John,

Thanks for the insightful observations.  I think that knowing the
original premise here is important - and also documenting
that paper trail.  (So - OK - I chose a more colourful alternate
and unlikely history).

I still find it disorientating that we do not have a readily 
available requirements document for an established spec'.
That's exactly what I would have thought an engineering 
team would have close at hand (especially a W3C team, eh?).

So - the go-forward work begs that we reverse-engineer that
requirement set - or at least a new set - because how else
can we clearly manage both the initial delivery phase and
the then more importantly the future evolution?

Or are we saying that there is no future evolution - that this
is a one time effort?

Only clearly knowing the requirements I believe will allow
us to answer these questions.

Thanks, DW.
======================================================
Message text written by "John Evdemon"
>On Tuesday, June 24, 2003 3:05 PM, David RR Webber wrote: 
> 
> Here's the rationale - it appears the technical spec' was completed
> without anyone actually deciding the requirements (otherwise we'd
> not be having this conversation!!!!) 

I'm not sure if I would agree with that assumption, but I wasn't around
when BPEL 1.0 was developed.  There were reqs for WSFL and XLANG which
provided some of the initial ideas for BPEL.  BPEL was designed to
support both abstract and executable usage patterns while uniting block
structured (XLANG) and graph-oriented (WSFL) modeling approaches. 

We're working with an established spec.  I'm (once again) not sure why
we need to write a requirements document for an established spec.

> - what we have is a technical spec' that resulted from the Nike
approach - > "Just do it", and "oh yeah,take a look at pi-calculus - we
need that too".
 
Since neither of us was present at the initial design sessions we should
avoid making these types of sweeping statements.

JohnE
<



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]