[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - next execution step
|
Hi all, Here is the suggestion for the next execution step for Issue 24 - fowarding from editing subgroup to the full TC list for a boarder scope of request for comments ... (as suggested by Diane) Diane also mentioned that it may be a good time to move to OASIS-based namespaces. Any opinion? Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu -------- Original Message --------
Hi, Alex, this sounds like good progress - thanks to all who participated. As I recall the resolution to issue 24 was approved by the TC, but there were several folks interested in seeing the details of the resolution as well - when you feel this is complete enough, please forward to the full TC for review. I don't think we should have to revote it, but should give everyone a chance to see it and bring up any questions or comments. Thanks. Regards, Diane IBM Dynamic e-business Technologies drj@us.ibm.com (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123 ----- Forwarded by Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 05/10/2004 02:04 PM -----
Hi, all editor subgroup members, We had a conf call with Phil (from Unisys), John and Satish, Nick and me on some general abstract BPEL discussion (Thursday - May 06). I got an action item to make the changes to schema and spec to reflect Issue 24 resolution, i.e., separate the schemas under two namespaces. Here are my suggested changes of phrase-1: (1) create two namespace URI: "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/" for executable BPEL "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/abstract" for abstract BPEL (2) remove abstractProcess="yes|no"attribute in the process definition Using the namespace and/or prefixes to denote whether this is an abstract or executable process. E.g.: <bpws:process xmlns:bpws="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/"> <bpwsa:process xmlns:bpwsa="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/abstract"> (3) Going through the spec apply the above changes in (2). E.g. (i) adding namespace URIs to Section 2. (ii) remove abstractProcess attribute reference in Section 6.2, Section 16 and other examples. (4) create a XSD file "wsbpel_abstract.xsd", which is just a temporary place holder to point to the new namespace as the targetNamespace and which defines an element which extends from the executable tProcess type. Please note that this schema extension extension is a just temporarily arrangement. We shall work on details of separating the schemas in phrase-2 after we vote on Issue 107, 99 and etc. What do you guys think? Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Alex Yiu wrote: Hi, Forwarding to the editing group email list to move the actual discussion there ... Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu -------- Original Message --------
Hi all, (Cross posting from Issue 99) Judging from the resolution of Issue 24, (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200401/msg00013.html) we want to have two namespaces. Issue 24 execution has been in the "kitchen" sink for a while. I would suggest the editing subgroup (including myself) to make a small incremental change first to the spec in the coming few weeks to reflect the desire of having two namespaces. After voting on issue 99, 107 and etc, we will work the remaining details for Issue 24, i.e. separating those 2 schemas while keeping some linkage in using XML Schema construct. Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]