[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote (hopefully the final text)
Following the discussion at today's meeting, I think the following is most widely acceptable: Proposed resolution: ---------------------------------------------------- Given that the scope of BP is confined to the specifications it references, and that BPEL is of wider application: a) In developing the BPEL language, where reference is made to specifications that are in BP 1.0 scope, the BP 1.0 requirements will normally be followed. b) Where use-cases and use-case artifacts are in BP 1.0 scope (i.e. using referenced specifications) they will be BP 1.0 compliant, if possible. c) All BPEL implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can participate in BP1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY allow the BP 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for scenarios encompassed by BP 1.0. ---------------------------------------------------- On c), the last comment (not certain who from) on the call was to delete the second sentence, but from other comments I think the general feeling was that the longer form clearer. 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
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]