[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
Yaron, you say: > I think that the BP is a minefield That is a strange statement coming from the representative of a company that is one of the Founding Members of WS-I, has been one of the most active contributors of BP 1.0, and is one of the editors of the document itself. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] > Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:29 AM > To: Ugo Corda; 'Furniss, Peter'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote > > > I think that the BP is a minefield and at every step we think > we have stepped on a mine but, depending on how you > understand the BP spec, that mine may be a stone. > > Taking a dependency on a spec which leads to such consistent > confusion and ambiguities does not fill me with much confidence. > > As the proposal now standards I personally intend to vote > against it. I believe the ramifications of the proposal are > ambiguous. If someone can come up with language that clearly > states the sorts of things that Peter has been explaining in > his mails then I would be willing to vote in favor but I > haven't seen a solid proposal yet. > > Just my two euros, > > Yaron > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] > > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:28 AM > > To: Furniss, Peter; ygoland@bea.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote > > > > > > Peter, Yaron, > > > > Regarding the XML 1.0 vs. XML 2.0 issue, sec. 2 of BP 1.0 > > clearly states: > > > > "The scope of the Profile delineates the technologies that it > > addresses; in other words, the Profile only > > attempts to improve interoperability within its own scope. > > Initially, the Profile's scope is bounded by the > > specifications referenced by it; for a complete list of the > > Profile's referenced specifications, see Appendix I". > > > > and the list in Appendix I specifies XML 1.0 and WSDL 1.1. > > Since the current version of BPEL uses those specs, it falls > > within the scope of BP 1.0. > > > > It certainly makes sense that when a new version of XML comes > > out BPEL will want to take advantage of it. Will BPEL try to > > use XML 2.0 and still use WSDL 1.1? If that's the case, then > > BPEL would fall out of scope for BP 1.0. If, as it is more > > likely to happen, a future version of BPEL decided to use XML > > 2.0 and WSDL 2.0, then BPEL will likely fall under the scope > > of a new BP version, let's say BP 2.0, which defines XML 2.0 > > and WSDL 2.0 under its scope. > > > > Ugo > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com] > > > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:07 AM > > > To: ygoland@bea.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote > > > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > > > > > 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. > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]