Re: [bpel4people] BPEL4People - Applying F2F Minutes

[Yoichi Takayama <yoichi@melcoe.mq.edu.au>]

My memory of it is that since we voted on BP-65 after BP-64, we did not re-visit BP-64 to vote given that BP-65 is given approval. I think that the other issues following BP-65, we closed them.

At the time we moved onto BP-65, we left the BP-64 as was. That is, that I would re-consider what's the problem is after re-reading the TaskProcessor in Section 6 and come back to the next TC.

I think that my interpretation of how the BPEL4Peolle CD02 expects Tasks to implement actual Human Tasks applications (by Web Services) seems to be different from everyone's. I need to find out whether I am reading the CD-02 somehow wrong or it can be read my way, then need to propose what to do with BP-64, either re-state it or drop it.

Does it make sense?

Thanks,

Yoichi

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yoichi Takayama, PhD

Senior Research Fellow

RAMP Project

MELCOE (Macquarie E-Learning Centre of Excellence)

MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY

Phone: +61 (0)2 9850 9073

Fax: +61 (0)2 9850 6527

www.mq.edu.au

www.melcoe.mq.edu.au/projects/RAMP/

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MACQUARIE UNIVERSITY: CRICOS Provider No 00002J

This message is intended for the addressee named and may contain confidential information.  If you are not the intended recipient, please delete it and notify the sender. Views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, and are not necessarily the views of Macquarie E-Learning Centre Of Excellence (MELCOE) or Macquarie University.

On 31/01/2009, at 9:08 AM, Dave Ings wrote:

2. The minutes do not record how we disposed of Yoichi's proposed BP-64. We accepted BP-65, which was the need to provide a conceptual architecture introduction (for new readers), and as part of the same discussion thread we closed 66, 67 and 68 with no action. I can't recall whether we (a) forgot to vote on closing 64, or forgot to record the vote or (b) asked Yoichi to revisit the issue statement for next TC given our acceptance of 65.

Anyone remember? My hunch is we meant to close it (having accepted 65) but forgot to conduct the vote.