[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: issue - 11
I've extracted the relevant portions of minutes from meetings this year on issue 11 and included them below. In terms of status, we have:
1. an original motion/second from Ugo
2. a proposed amendment from Chris which does not appear to have been seconded formally, although several people spoke in favor of it.
3. an agreement from Chris to update the proposed amendment for infoset.
4. an agreement we would table the discussion until 157 was resolved.
5. a motion/second from the f2f that the issue be closed with no change.
Given this, I think it makes most sense to consider the motion to close with no change as out of order since we had an amendment we had not concluded on. So, that says we should finish discussion of Chris's amendment and vote on whether to amend the motion. Then we can take the motion to close with no change as a second amendment. (I realize we could view the motion to close as an amendment to the first amendment but that wasn't the intent and the process gets overly complicated if we go that route.)
We can discuss this in the call this week.
Minutes from April 27 on issue 11:
Issue 11 –Ugo Corda
Ugo provided a history and summary of this issue; he believes the current specification lacks capabilities. An updated proposal from Danny is more precise; it adds 4 constructs to the language.
Ugo wants to address the objections:
1-XPATH vs. info set formulation
Ugo would consider it a friendly amendment if someone wanted to include info set formulation in the specification.
2-programming in the large vs. programming in the small
3- portability and standards
problem is not solved using proprietary standards
are 2 potential standards: 1) XUPDATE (has been no action on this in a long time) and 2) BPELJ (which has been proposed by IBM and BEA)
Yaron reminded that JCP contract precludes discussion
Ugo stated that he could repeat publicly available information which is nothing is happening that should lead us to believe that the standard will be available in time frame of 1 -2 years after BPEL is released.
Ugo wants language in BPEL specification to cover portability
Diane asked for a motion
Ugo would like a web ballot.
Diane was not sure that a web ballot was the best approach and suggested a discussion.
(0800 PST + )01:05 *** Issue 11 Discussion ***
Ugo: Motions to accept proposal for issue 11
Danny: Seconds
Chris Keller: Proposes amendment (a compromise proposal); details to be
delivered today or tomorrow on mailing list.
= Proposal tabled until next week so that group can review Chris'
amendment.
Minutes from May 4 relative to 11:
Diane – 11
Diane – Proposal from Ugo and Chris.
Chris – I propose what I submitted via email as a solution for 11
Diane – if necessary, we can allow a multiple choice vote because of the complexity of the issue
Diane - Ugo do you consider this a friendly amendment
Ugo – My company is not ready to accept Chris’s proposal as a friendly amendment. But we can discuss.
Chris – I think it is a narrow approach to what was the original issue. It solves the original problem.
Danny – We will need more time to understand the implication.
Alex – I have technical reservations. I would like hear Maciej’s view
Maciej – I have similar technical reservation. We have copy that is complete. We are opening up the XML manipulation in a very limited. I think this is more dangerous
Ugo – It can solve aggregation of results. And lots of others.
Yaron – Moving ahead on 11 when we have not resolved the copy issue. Does it need to be schema aware. We may first want to define copy. Before we try to expand it.
Alex – Copy is replace one node to another. If we put stuff on it, it will be even more undefined.
Dieter – So in my opinion. Problem and solution in 157 is orthogonal to solution in 11.
Yaron – The solution is schema unware. And if we solve copy problem as schema aware then we will have issues.
Yaron – It is like trying to extend a base class that has not been defined.
Paco – There are lots of issues which are interrelated. But we cannot solve all issues together else we will be in a deadlock. I like Chris’s proposal, it is a perfect middle point not too specific and not overly generic.
Yaron – It is written using Xpath model. It will only work with Xpath and nothing else. The infoset model is a better so that it is language independent. So proposal needs to be re-written using infoset
Chris – I will take that on
Yaron – This clears up my technical issue
Alex – not vote this week
Alex – Other ambiguities. This cannot be solved unless we use Xpath.
Maciej – Right now there is an explicit contract. Between BPEL and expression language. But changing that will make it complicated.
Also it is similar to append. We should probably go to the original proposal for 11
Diane – people need more time. Chris will add infoset
Chris – yes
Diane – We will defer this.
Chris – let’s defer this and do it next week
Minutes from May 11 on issue 11
- 11 (Chris to provide update on infoset, Alex to provide further info on his concerns)
Chris and Yaron haven’t had time yet to recast Chris’ proposal in infoset terms
Ugo: prefer to decide on Chris’ amendment after copy semantics are clarified and finalized (see outstanding issues like 157)
Paco: would still like to continue discussions, even though vote would be postponed
Alex: reviews his recent email thread critiquing Chris’ amendment – major concern is how to identify parent for insertion based on infoset only
Various discussions on possible future changes to copy because of issue 157
Minutes from Sept f2f
Issue 11
Regards, Diane
IBM Emerging Internet Software Standards
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]