| Hi Dave,
Now I have an issue with the Task Processor and its relation to the local Human Tasks and remote Human Tasks.
In my view there should be only one Task Processor (local) and it does not make sense to have a remote Task Processor.
Both local Human Task and remote Human Task should use the same Task Processor.
(Please refer my new issue requests).
If this view is correct, the BP-64 is standing and I would like to come back to it later as a separate issue.
If this view is incorrect, the remote Task Processor is doing the Task life cycle management, and it may be able to send the "start" to the Human Task implementation. The communication between the remote Task Processor and the Task implementation is undefined in that case, since the EPR defined in the Task definition is the EPR of the Task Processor (although it is not so described). I, however, do not believe this, since there is not way for the Task Processor to assign a user from a local system to the remote Human Task. So, I do not speculate on how the human Task GUI may be started by a user in this case at all.
Just occurred to me that if the Task definition is a complex Task and needs routing, whether it is a remote Task or it contains some remote Tasks may be an issue for a Task Processor to deal with. In this, I cannot see a remote Task Processor dealing with it, either, though.
If someone can represent my view in the TC, that would be great. But if that is not possible, may we discuss how we may be able to deal with this?
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 -------------------------------------------------------------------------- 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 18/02/2009, at 1:28 PM, Dave Ings wrote: Here's the draft agenda for this week's TC meeting. Comments welcome - in particular please note the CD2 agenda item notes.
1. Roll call, assignment of today's minute taker, agenda review
According to the chair's notes, the minute taker candidates are Alex, Vinkesh, Benjamin and Hannah.
2. Review and approval of the previous TC (i.e. F2F) minutes
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bpel4people/email/archives/200901/msg00058.html
As per http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bpel4people/email/archives/200901/msg00060.html
we need to approve the minutes with the following correction:
>> Next steps: Alex and Phil to work with SAP to iterate the lean task proposal
3a. Review Administrative Action Items (if any open)
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bpel4people/members/action_items.php
Alex/Phil: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bpel4people/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=2526
3b. Review LOA Requests (if any new)
No new requests.
3c. Review and approval vote for our CD02 candidate (up to 30 minutes)
Action item: http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bpel4people/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=2527
Issue: http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BP-16
At the F2F additional time was granted for CD02 review and all TC members were requested to send their comments to the mailing list in advance of the 2/18 TC. The only comments submitted so far were from Phil, see:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bpel4people/email/archives/200902/msg00003.html
Given we bundled RFC 2119 changes in CD02 with many other issue resolutions (which is water under the bridge, discussed at the F2F) in the interest moving the TC forward Phil has graciously agreed to allow his review comments to be addressed in a new issue to be opened following approval of the CD02 candidate. Phil's email actually consists of two new and unrelated issues in addition to a number of 2119 comments, soif the TC takes Phil up on his offer there will in fact be three new issues opened.
4. Discuss New Issues (up to 30 minutes)
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BP-69
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BP-70
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BP-71
Also, Yoichi was going to revisit what should be done with BP-64 (initially discussed at the F2F);
http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BP-64
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/bpel4people/email/archives/200902/msg00001.html
5. Discuss Task Routing Patterns Issue Managment (up to 10 minutes)
In light of the direction the task routing patterns work has taken, the chair would like to consult with the TC whether unassigned issues BP-29 through BP-33 should be closed for administrative convenience. If so, BP-28 would remain open as the anchor for the work.
6. Discuss Open Issues (up to 60 minutes)
Michael, Dieter, Phil and Frank all own open issues. We will discuss those issues they are ready to discuss.
7. AOB
If there is time and interest, the subset of the TC working on task routing patterns can report to the full TC and/or use the rest of the TC for a working session.
8. Editing Subcommittee Meeting
Telecon Information:
North American toll-free number: 866-245-5059
European toll-free number: (00)-800-4444-1010
International number: 416-343-2607
Conference ID: 2388736
Informal chat room: http://webconf.soaphub.org/conf/room/bpel4people-TC
Regards, Dave Ings,
Emerging Software Standards
Email: ings@ca.ibm.com
Yahoo Messenger: dave_ings
|