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

["Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>]

Yaron,

I believe the (rough) consensus of the group is as your last paragraph -
at least BP 1.0, not only BP 1.0 - so it's a matter of getting clear
wording not different intent. In the light of the discussion when Ugo
proposed the wording of A, I don't think the sort of restriction in
R2011 was intended (selecting from a possible choice), but only in cases
where BP clarified/corrected WSDL, when BPEL should follow the BP
interpretation. Actually, "interpret .. contradictory" is even more
flexible than "follow BP ", I think.

However, on looking through BP 1.0 in order to find an example, there
don't seem to be many, if any, cases of real clarification. As I see it,
A (whatever it ends up saying) is a policy decision applicable to future
detailed issues and editing. (and we might, if we really thought it
right, contradict the policy in a particular case, though no-one can yet
see a case where we could even think of it)

On re-reading BP, a crucial thing to get clear in one's mind is the
scope (or, perhaps one could say "target") of the profile. The comment
that appears after R2401 (itself well below the BPEL horizon) is
illuminating - the presence of non-BP bindings in a wsdl description
does not make the description non-compliant (at least, I assume that's
what is meant - it certainly makes sense). I couldn't find clearly
stated exactly how that scoping is to be considered, though from Ugo's
comments early in this thread, it seems to be something like "if you do
this kind of thing, then you are compliant if and only if you do it
exactly this way; but if you aren't doing this kind of thing, this
profile has nothing to say". That begs the question on the multi-capable
entity and the negative requirements in BP - to take your example, if a
future implementation can handle XML 1.0 and XML 2.0, can it claim to be
fully BP-compliant because it can use use 1.0 but is out of scope when
using 2.0.


Can you suggest text to clarify A ?

Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] 
> Sent: 24 October 2003 02:01
> To: Furniss, Peter; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
> 
> 
> 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/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
> 
>