OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested


While what I have read seems very much like what Ivana has proposed,

I personally feel that until a formal definition of Abstract BPEL is hammered

Out, I wouldn’t base any final spec on it.

 

As for renaming Abstract BPEL well now that’s an interesting idea.  What

Would you call it? Hmmm  Executable BPEL with a Twist J

 

Phil Rossomando

 

 

 

Research Director, Technology & Architecture

Unisys Corporation

Unisys Way, B-330

Blue Bell, PA 19424 USA

Philip.rossomando@unisys.com

215-986-3998

FAX 413-0215-2043

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 5:34 PM
To: Danny van der Rijn
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested

 


Hi,

Personally, I hope there would be some output from Abstract BPEL subgroup that can be consumed by the main BPEL TC within a number of weeks.

My gut feelings is telling me that:
Before the BPEL TC itself finalizes the shapes and detailed semantics of abstract BPEL, anything detailed discussion on whether / how to register BPEL in UDDI will not yield any fruitful result.

Just my 2 cents.
Thanks.


Regards,
Alex Yiu



Danny van der Rijn wrote:

paco -

 

i just skimmed it, and my impression hasn't changed.  as a case in point, here are the first two sentences of the abstract:

"BPEL4WS abstract processes describe the observable behavior of Web services. They

complement abstract WSDL interfaces (port types and operations) and the UDDI model

by defining dependencies between service operations in the context of a message

exchange."

 

this sentiment, especially of the first sentence, is echoed many times throughout the Note.  most of the time without the 2nd half of the second sentence to slightly temper the connotation.

 

someone who isn't reading this with the background of the large conversation that is going on in our TC could easily be led to believe in the existence of the correspondence between Abstract WSDL and Abstract BPEL that I mentioned before.

 

while i don't completely think that this paper is off base, i would prefer to be informed by the work of the abstract BPEL subcommittee before rendering final judgement (my point 1 below).  as for point 2, i can't help but think that unless the wording of this paper is changed to be extremely cautious around the definition and explanation of Abstract BPEL, it will only lead to further confusion.

----- Original Message -----

Sent: Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:35 PM

Subject: Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note - Review Requested

 





Danny,

You should read the proposal. I think it makes a lot of sense, even if I
would have my own set of comments and suggestions to make. Many of us
assume that abstract BPEL will likely become the premier mechanism to
encode behavior (protocol) information in a service description. I don't
think many people would argue with this notion.

Also, this is the first time I have heard of anyone misinterpreting
"abstract" as in  "abstract BPEL" to mean "WSDL abstract" as in "port
type".

Paco



                                                                                                                                       
                      Danny van der                                                                                                    
                      Rijn                     To:       wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org                                                   
                      <dannyv@tibco.com        cc:                                                                                     
                      >                        Subject:  Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical  
                                                Note - Review Requested                                                                
                      08/04/2004 03:52                                                                                                 
                      PM                                                                                                               
                                                                                                                                       




as i said in conference today, i am afraid that the UDDI TC is even more
confused about what Abstract BPEL is than we are.  other than pointing out
even more strongly the importance of getting our definition of Abstract
BPEL pinned down, i think that this note should lead us in 2 directions:

1) finding out why someone would want to register an Abstract BPEL with
UDDI.
2) changing the name of Abstract BPEL.  this is not the first time i've
seen someone confuse the relationship between Abstract BPEL and Executable
BPEL to conflate it with the relationship between Abstract WSDL and
Concrete WSDL, and unless we change the name, i'm sure it won't be the
last.

i admit, i haven't read the UDDI proposal referenced in this note, but i
feel pretty safe in my assumption without having read it.

danny
----- Original Message -----
From: Luc Clement
To: drj@us.ibm.com ; jevdemon@microsoft.com
Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org ; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org ; Karl F.
Best ; James Bryce Clark ; Mary McRae ; Tony Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:58 PM
Subject: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC
Technical Note - Review Requested

Dear WSBPEL Chairs,
The UDDI Spec TC has been working on a “Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry”
Technical Note (TN) that it would like your input on before proceeding to
ratify this TN.
The TN provides a mapping for publishing BPEL4WS abstract processes into a
UDDI registry. The primary goals of mapping BPEL4WS artifacts to the UDDI
model are to:
   1. Enable the automatic registration of BPEL4WS definitions in UDDI
   2. Enable optimized and flexible UDDI queries based on specific BPEL4WS
      artifacts and metadata
   3. Provide composability with the mapping described in the "Using WSDL
      in a UDDI Registry, Version 2.0.2" [1] Technical Note.
We would like to invite the BPEL TC to review and comment on the document
and ask that you assign two or more reviewers.
The TN is posted at the following locations by format:
      PDF:
      http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/8442/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.pdf

      MSWord:
      http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/8441/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.doc

We would appreciate comments as soon as possible but preferably before 31
Aug 04. Please submit comments:
      To: Claus von Riegen, SAP (claus.von.riegen@sap.com),
      cc: (UDDI Chairs): luc.clement@systinet.com; tony.rogers@ca.com
      cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Thanks in advance


Luc Clément
Co-Chair OASIS UDDI Spec TC
Systinet Corporation
Tel: +1.617.395.6798


[1] OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note: “Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry,
Version 2.0.2”,
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tns.htm#WSDLTNV2

 



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]