RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote

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

I would not be comfortable voting for this proposed resolution without a
detailed definition of what point A means. I know UGO pointed out some
sections and if you believe those sections are a complete list then they
should be directly included in the motion.

Just to give an example, R2011 specifies that one can only import XML
schemas defined using XML 1.0. Well if XML 1.1 or XML 2.0 or whatever comes
out and I want to use it then I will use it and the BPEL standard has
absolutely no business telling me otherwise. It's one thing to say 'thou
shalt minimally support 1.0' it is a whole other thing to say 'thou shalt
ONLY support 1.0 and nothing else'. The later requirement is inappropriate
for BPEL and unfortunately many of the BP requirements are written in that
format.

I'm happy having us establish a relationship with BP but we will need text
to make it clear that BP is a minimum, not a maximum and therefore we are
implementing its requirements in a manner that is not wholly consistent with
the manner in which those requirements are stated. 

Or in English, BP may say 'thou shalt only do' but to us this means 'that
should at least do'.

		Yaron

P.S. It should give us all pause for thought that in order to use BP we
effectively have to re-write it's requirements. That doesn't strike me as a
good thing and seems like something we should communicate back to WS-I.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:49 PM
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
> 
> 
> Following the discussion on issue 72 on the list and on the 15 October
> call, the following resolution is proposed, hoping for a vote at the
> next conference call:
> 
> 
> A The BPEL language definition shall not interpret
> underspecified/erroneous
> WSDL 1.1 features in a way that is contradictory with BP 1.0
> interpretation
> 
> B Use-case artifacts shall be either BP 1.0 compliant or have a
> necessary and
> explained reason to be otherwise
> 		
> C Use-cases shall be capable of implementation with exclusively BP 1.0
> services or have a necessary and explained reason to be otherwise
> 			
> D Conformant bpel engines shall be able to offer and use BP 1.0
> services,
> but are free to implement other bindings and encodings even with
> soap/http
> 
> E No restriction is made on deployed bpel processes
> 
> ---
> These correspond to the A.1 as modified by Ugo, B3, C2, D2 
> and E2 of the
> "Some proposals" message
> http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00105.html
> 
> If you think these aren't right, please propose amendments 
> prior to the
> meeting so everyone gets a chance to see what's on offer.
> 
> Peter
> 
> ------------------------------------------
> Peter Furniss
> Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
> 
>    Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
>    Business transaction management software for application 
> coordination
> 
> web: http://www.choreology.com
> email:  peter.furniss@choreology.com
> phone:  +44 870 739 0066  <-- new, from 4 August 2003
> mobile: +44 7951 536168
> 
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from 
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.
php.

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>