wsbpel 2/8/2006: Meaning and Implications of 'Compliant' Implementation

[Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

In the v2.0 Committee Draft, we speak in many places about 'compliant 
implementation', 'BPEL-compliant infrastructure', 'compliant BPEL 
processor', or generically.  On most references, this terminology is 
used with RFC 2119 'MUST.' Suggest the TC consider the implications of 
dictating 'compliance' without:

   1. A defined scope
   2. The implications to software implementations
   3. Other specifics as required (such as levels of adherence)

If we choose to use similar verbiage, I would recommend we use 
'conformance.' ISO has clearly defined conformance and compliance with 
the former being voluntary and the latter typically associated with 
regulatory or mandatory requirements, which may infer other legal 
implications on software implementations. I am uncertain the latter is 
our intent. There are also implications from a test perspective.

Suggest at a minimum we consider using 'conforming xxxx.' The TC may 
also choose to discuss if a generic statement is desired to bound 'a 
conforming xxxx.'

The language cited occurs in:

    * Section 3: regarding WS-I BP v1.1
    * Section 4: For rejecting process definitions by static analysis
    * Section 8.3: Expressions for use of XPath
    * Section 8.4.1: Copy operation
    * Section 9: Correlation
    * Section 9.2: Correlation sets
    * Section 10.4: Inbound messages and message exchange
    * Section 15: General statement associated with Security Considerations

Thanks.