Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 86 - Proposal For Vote

[Francisco Curbera <curbera@us.ibm.com>]

I agree with Yaron. I don't know what this new sentence buys for us; what
exactly would a reader of the spec make of that text, except to get a bit
more confused than he/she already is?

Paco



                                                                                                                                                    
                      "Monica J.                                                                                                                    
                      Martin"                  To:       ygoland@bea.com, "'Wsbpel@Lists. Oasis-Open. Org (E-mail)'" <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>  
                      <Monica.Martin@Su        cc:       "Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>, Ugo Corda <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>          
                      n.COM>                   Subject:  Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 86 - Proposal For Vote                                                
                                                                                                                                                    
                      01/19/2005 11:08                                                                                                              
                      AM                                                                                                                            
                                                                                                                                                    




Resend because it didn't hit the list.

>> Goland: If I may paraphrase "Future versions of X may support Y and
>> Z. This specification says nothing about Y or Z." Why is this
>> statement necessary?
>
> mm1: Yaron, both Ron and I agree it is important for WS-BPEL TC to be
> future-looking. By making a forward-looking statement, we evidence
> that intent without levying any burden.
>
> In addition, I suggest we address Ugo's question about WS-I BP v1.1.
> Whether this is a part of Issue 86, revisit of Issue 72 or a new
> issue, I don't have a preference. Thanks.
>
>>> Proposal to vote, Issue 86 SOAP v1.2
>>> Change in Section 3.0:
>>>
>>> Change From:
>>> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL
>>> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can
>>> participate in
>>> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY
>>> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for
>>> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0."
>>>
>>> Change To (add two sentences):
>>> "With respect to [WS-I Basic Profile] (Basic Profile 1.0) all BPEL
>>> implementations SHOULD be configurable such that they can
>>> participate in
>>> Basic Profile 1.0 compliant interactions. A BPEL implementation MAY
>>> allow the Basic Profile 1.0 configuration to be disabled, even for
>>> scenarios encompassed by the Basic Profile 1.0. Future versions of
>>> the WS-I Basic Profile may support the W3C SOAP v1.2 Recommendation
>>> and a
>>> subsequent WSDL v2.0 when complete in W3C. It is not the objective
>>> of this specification to define or require that particular protocol
>>> bindings be supported by compliant implementations."
>>>
>>> Thanks.
>>> Submitted by: Ron Ten-Hove and Monica J. Martin
>>


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/leave_workgroup.php
.