Hi,
I agree with both Alex and Ron, we should
not use the same QName for entities that have different meanings.
To address the concern of existing tools
not supporting advanced XML features, maybe we should try it out and see if
that really is the case. Are there any other concerns aside tooling?
Rgds,
From: Ron Ten-Hove [mailto:Ronald.Ten-Hove@Sun.COM]
Sent: Tuesday, November 29, 2005
1:44 PM
To: Rania Khalaf
Cc: 'wsbpeltc'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 -
proposal to vote (directional vote)
Rania,
I have to disagree about using a single name space. Although
the abstract and execution languages are similar, they are not the same. Forcing them into the same
name space will be confusing, and make existing schema-aware tools less useful,
since will have to depend on semantics where simple syntax could have sufficed.
We shouldn't dismiss dual schemata as as impractical. There
are several approaches to this that avoid the horrors of cut-and-paste.Other
TCs have tackled similar problems; I'm sure this TC can as well.
-Ron
Rania Khalaf wrote:
Hi Alex,
I think going with the second point, that it doesn't make much sense to split
the namespaces. Especially, as Yuzo had mentioned, that most tools don't
support advanced XSD features and as Danny also said if there's no really
compelling reason to manage several XSDs and changes we should try to keep it
simple.
As for cut and paste, the ns decl is up top anyway, so in many cases a cut and
paste is just that and people will be able to copy bits with opaque in them.
my .02.
rania
Alex Yiu wrote:
Hi all,
I think we should still have distinct namespaces between Abstract and
Executable BPEL, after most of 82.* got resolved. Major reasons are:
* There are _significant amount of syntax differences_
between an
Abstract Process with
_opacityOmissionUsed="yes"_ and Exec
Process. (I am talking about the Abstract base,
not AP11 profile;
essentially all compulsory element and
attributes becomes optional.).
* On the other hand, there are _moderate amount of syntax
differences_ between an between an Abstract
Process with
_opacityOmissionUsed="no"_ and Exec
Process. (I already capture
those differences in my previous email).
* I am worrying people uses _copy-and-paste and
mix-and-match
between Abstract and Executable BPEL_. (e.g.
copying a fragment of
empty <scope> from an Abstract BPEL into
Exec BPEL). If we use the
same namespace for both kinds of BPEL, it would
be difficult for
us to tell that users are doing this kind of
mistakes. If we use
different namespace, if people use an XML-aware
tool to do such a
copy-and-paste, we can detect that kind of
mistakes more easily.
* With both AP11 and Template profiles, I tend to forseee
people
would create the Executable Process based on
Abstract Process with
sometool help, given with constraints specified
in the profile.
Even when people want to create an Executable
BPEL based on
Abstract BPEL with just emacs/notepad. People
just need to following:
1. copy the BPEL file
2. _make one-line of change_:
changing XMLNS declaration from
Abstract to
Exec BPEL.
3. add extra BPEL constructs
for Execution Completion.
Having two
distinct namespace will allow us to _validate the
Exec BPEL
code during step (3) by using XSD_. Hence, having
multiple NS
gives us more tool to do BPEL validation, while
collapsing
Abstract and Executable do not yield any user
benefits.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Peter Furniss wrote:
I thought we said (or maybe it was just me) that we
should revisit 24
once we had sorted out (in 82.*) just how much difference there was
between syntax e and syntax a. When issue 24 was resolved we were
anticipating a quite different scale of differences. I had to drop out
of active involvement in 82 soon after that, I do think we should
consider rescinding 24 (sorry Diane)
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Rania Khalaf [mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com]
Sent: 22 November 2005 16:28
To: Alex Yiu
Cc: wsbpeltc; Rania Khalaf; Danny van der Rijn; Ron Ten-Hove; 'Monica J.
Martin'
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - proposal to vote (directional vote)
Hi guys,
If we agree about the schema of abstract will only add the opaque tokens then I
don't see any motivation any more for 24's resolution .
Is it really worth all the pain of xsd:redefine and managing three schemas
instead of just saying in the text that you can only use abstract tokens in AP
?
regards,
Rania
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php