[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues
On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Ron Ten-Hove wrote: > Sanjay, > > I believe Jeff was referring to the WS-BPEL TC, not the SCA BPEL > WG. As a witness to that TC's debates, I can attest that his > description is accurate. that's correct. -jeff > > --Ron > > Patil, Sanjay wrote: >> Some clarification: AFAICT, The SCA BPEL TC did not have any lengthy >> debate about picking 1.1 Vs 2.0 numbering for the OASIS revision. >> Rather, the issue about version numbering was noted and quickly >> tabled >> with the assumption that the version numbering issue applies to >> all the >> Open CSA TCs and should be resolved elsewhere in a consistent manner. >> >> Personally, I prefer that we start with calling the OASIS >> revisions of >> the SCA specifications as version 1.1 and possibly bump up the >> version >> number to 2.0 before finalization in case we end up making backward >> incompatible changes. >> >> -- Sanjay >> >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com] Sent: >>> Monday, Sep 24, 2007 20:37 PM >>> To: Mike Edwards >>> Cc: Anish Karmarkar; Ashok Malhotra; Bryan Aupperle; David Booz; >>> Blohm, Henning; Martin Chapman; Michael Rowley; opencsa- >>> ms@lists.oasis-open.org; Patil, Sanjay; Simon Holdsworth >>> Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues >>> >>> >>> On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Mike Edwards wrote: >>> >>> >>>> Anish, >>>> >>>> Thanks for bringing these items forward. >>>> >>>> I have a suggestion of how to deal with these items and similar >>>> items in the short run. I suspect >>>> that what I suggest will form part of the long run process anyway. >>>> >>>> These items should be placed onto the Agenda of upcoming >>>> meetings of each TC by the chair(s) >>>> of those TCs, with the aim of getting each TC to make a >>>> decision. In order to do this, each item must >>>> be couched in terms of a definitive recommendation that can be >>>> adopted. >>>> >>>> Issue 2 below is in the right form. >>>> >>>> Issue 1 below is more of a discussion. Here is a proposal: >>>> >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs? >>>> >>>> To avoid confusion, all the initial specifications produced by >>>> the SCA TCs belonging to the Open CSA MS >>>> will be given the label "Version 1.1". >>>> >>> ok, let the naming debate begin. :-) >>> >>> We (ORCL) discussed this issue internally and came to the >>> tentative conclusion that we should probably call these 2.0, >>> unless it does in fact turn out that ALL of the specs will be be >>> backward compatible with the 1.0 versions. Obviously we have our >>> doubts that will be the ultimate outcome. >>> FWIW, it was noted that the BPEL TC went through a similar >>> lengthy debate and finally settled on 2.0. >>> >>> That said, I suspect that it is probably premature to decide on >>> a name. We should wait until we are much closer to "release" and >>> have a better understanding of the diffs that are adopted. So >>> how about we pick just pick a code name (its more fun to have a >>> code name contest than to argue about 1.1 vs. 2.0 :-) >>> The winner gets a free copy. >>> >>> cheers, >>> jeff >>> >>> >>> >>>> This will enable all the specifications to be clearly related >>>> to each other and also to be distinguished from >>>> the Version 1.0 SCA specifications published by the Open SOA >>>> collaboration in March 2007. >>>> >>>> ------- >>>> >>>> Now all that is required is to get each TC to adopt the >>>> resolution for each of these issues. >>>> >>>> The real liaison will begin if and when TCs disagree about the >>>> resolution ;-) >>>> >>>> >>>> Yours, Mike. >>>> >>>> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO. >>>> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, >>> Great Britain. >>> >>>> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431 >>>> Email: mike_edwards@uk.ibm.com >>>> >>>> >>>> Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com> >>>> 24/09/2007 18:30 >>>> >>>> To >>>> opencsa-ms@lists.oasis-open.org >>>> cc >>>> "Patil, Sanjay" <sanjay.patil@sap.com>, Mike Edwards/UK/ >>>> IBM@IBMGB, Martin Chapman <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, Ashok >>>> Malhotra <ashok.malhotra@oracle.com>, David Booz >>>> <booz@us.ibm.com>, Michael Rowley <mrowley@bea.com>, "Blohm, >>>> Henning" >>> <henning.blohm@sap.com>, >>>> Bryan Aupperle <aupperle@us.ibm.com>, Simon Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB >>>> Subject >>>> [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Open CSA SC, >>>> >>>> The SCA BPEL TC has two issues, which were discussed during the >>>> recently >>>> concluded F2F, that require coordination across all SCA TCs. >>>> Since there >>>> is no official liaison mechanism set up, on behalf of SCA >>> BPEL TC I'm >>> >>>> bringing these issues to the attention of the Open CSA SC. I >>>> would like >>>> to request the SC to coordinate this across all the SCA TCs. >>>> >>>> Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs? >>>> >>>> Should the version of the SCA specs be 2.0 or 1.x? Or >>> something else? >>> >>>> It is certainly possible to have the assembly specification >>> be version >>> >>>> 2.0 and BPEL C&I specification version that depends on >>> assembly 2.0 be >>> >>>> 1.5, for example. But such version numbers will be very >>>> confusing. Given >>>> that the TCs are affiliated with the Open CSA MS, a better approach >>>> would be to have the same version number for all the initial output >>>> specifications of the various SCA TC. If not, at the very >>> least, have >>> >>>> the number before the "." be the same. This will require >>> coordination >>> >>>> and agreement across all the TCs. >>>> >>>> Issue 2: Use of RFC 2119 keywords in the spec >>>> >>>> In aligning the spec with the OASIS template and accepting the >>>> OASIS TAB >>>> recommendations, the SCA BPEL TC decided to use the RFC >>> 2119 keywords >>> >>>> along with the following restriction: >>>> a) All RFC 2119 keywords will be of the uppercase form (for >>>> example, RFC >>>> 2119 keywords MUST be capitalized) >>>> b) use of lowercase 2119 keywords will not be used in the spec. >>>> When the >>>> use of 2119 keyword is needed, without having the implications wrt >>>> conformance, a suitable synonym will be found. >>>> c) RFC 2119 defines keywords that are synonyms of each other. For >>>> example 'SHALL' and 'MUST' mean the same thing. The TC >>> decided to not >>> >>>> use multiple forms to mean the same. Therefore the TC decided to >>>> use >>>> 'MUST' instead of 'SHALL' and 'MUST NOT' instead of 'SHALL NOT' >>>> through >>>> out the spec. >>>> Please note that the use of RFC 2119 keywords affect conformance. >>>> Consistency across the SCA spec with respect to conformance >>> and the >>>> use >>>> of normative conformance lanaguage is highly desirable. >>>> >>>> Please let me know if you have any questions. >>>> >>>> Thanks and regards. >>>> >>>> -Anish Karmarkar >>>> SCA BPEL TC co-chair on behalf of SCA BPEL TC >>>> -- >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Unless stated otherwise above: >>>> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales >>>> with number 741598. >>>> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, >>>> Hampshire PO6 3AU >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>> -- >>> Jeff Mischkinsky >>> jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com >>> Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards +1 >>> (650) 506-1975 >>> Consulting Member Technical Staff >>> 500 Oracle Parkway, M/ S 4OP9 >>> Oracle >>> Redwood Shores, CA 94065 >>> >>> >>> >>> > > -- > Sun's Open ESB Community (http://open-esb.org) > -- Jeff Mischkinsky jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards +1(650) 506-1975 Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/ S 4OP9 Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]