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

[Steve <steve@enigmatec.net>]

+1 from me to.

All the discussions on scope and focus from me are entirely as a 
consequence of not knowing the requirements that led to the development 
of BPEL. Further confusion is added, as opposed to clarity, through the 
BPEL authors comments on what issues remain with BPELV1.1.

I'd really like to put this whole thing to bed with a clear concise 
statement so that I too can focus on the right things in the right way 
and so remain at a high degree of efficiency.

If there is anything I can do, then I am a willing participant.

Cheers

Steve T

On Friday, June 27, 2003, at 05:57  pm, Yaron Y. Goland wrote:

> +1
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Assaf Arkin [mailto:arkin@intalio.com]
>> Sent: Wednesday, June 25, 2003 8:56 AM
>> To: John Evdemon
>> Cc: David RR Webber - XML ebusiness; Diane Jordan; 
>> saskary@nuperus.com;
>> wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; James Bryce Clark; Yaron Y. Goland
>> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] RE: Requirements and Scope Documents?
>>
>>
>> John Evdemon wrote:
>>
>>> 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.
>>>
>>>
>> We do have an established spec and it is a waste of time to
>> reverse-engineer the requirements that led to this spec just for the
>> purpose of having them written down.
>>
>> But, the TC consists of around a hundred members who have joined in
>> order to contribute to the development of the spec. We can't expect
>> people to participate and contribute if they do not all have an
>> understanding of what the spec is about. The recent discussion about
>> execution vs modeling vs authoring stems from that simple fact.
>>
>> Should I spend my employeer's time contributing ideas to improve the
>> usefulness of the spec to address XML authoring if that was never a
>> requirement? Should Edwin contribute an example for using coordination
>> protocols if that is not a requirement? And so forth.
>>
>> The authors made a conscious decision to target the spec to solve a
>> particular set of requirements. And given that we are working on an
>> established spec, I believe that for the most part we have well 
>> defined
>> requirements. Some of them are implicit and well understood. Other are
>> not. If the TC is to make any forward progress it need to consider
>> clearly specifying some of these requirements so they are understood 
>> to
>> the larger group.
>>
>> arkin
>>
>>
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
>> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>>
>>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: wsbpel-unsubscribe@lists.oasis-open.org
> For additional commands, e-mail: wsbpel-help@lists.oasis-open.org
>
> This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If 
> you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose 
> its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. 
> Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not 
> liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their 
> own antivirus software.
>

This email is confidential and may be protected by legal privilege. If you are not the intended recipient,  please do not copy or disclose its content but  delete the email and contact the sender immediately. Whilst we run antivirus software on all internet emails we are not liable for any loss or damage. The recipient is advised to run their own antivirus software.