Re: [wsbpel-reqts] [bpel-rqmts[ Jordan 8/29/2003: Issues Categories forDiscussion Boundaries

[Diane Jordan <drj@us.ibm.com>]

Monica,
I didn't get a chance to respond on
Friday - thanks for your work on this.   I think we're in agreement
that functional categorization is the way to go.  As we discussed
a couple weeks ago, any attempt to set priorities is likely to be too subjective
and lead to unproductive controversy.  The priorities will become
evident by virtue of the amount of effort the TC is willing to expend on
any given issue. 

I expect we (John and I with the help
of the issues coordination subgroup) will use the input on categories for
organizing agendas.   You use the term "bound"  below
which can imply setting constraints on bringing up issues that are viewed
as related in a way not reflected in your document.   I'm concerned
that if we try to impose that much rigor around categories it will lead
the TC down a path of working to refine the categorization rather than
working on resolving the issues.   Perhaps I'm being too particular
about the language here, but I would prefer to use a term like "orient"
or "organize" and avoid presenting the categorization as normative.
 

I've put categorization on the agenda
for tomorrow - you may want to post the document to the full group.  

Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com> 08/29/2003 01:54 PM

To:        bpel rqmts <wsbpel-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org>, Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS         cc:                 Subject:        [wsbpel-reqts] [bpel-rqmts[ Jordan 8/29/2003: Issues Categories for Discussion Boundaries

Diane,
In Wednesday's call we discussed trying to put the issues in similar
functional buckets for discussion, not particularly categorization by
priority. I think several of the priorities by function are apparent,
but (as we discussed) this is for the TC to decide.

Here is a broad categorization to discuss issues.
 They fall pretty
nicely except we may need to decompose correlation further, and also
discuss it understanding clear definitions for conversation, transaction
and business transaction.  I anticipate these will be discussed and
the
recognition made during the face-to-face in September.

I would like to propose these be considered by the
TC to bound
discussions. Whether or not the proposals or the volunteers champions
are combined, that's will be up to this SC and the TC itself.

I am formally asking we bring this up on Wednesday
and consider
discussing the issues in this fashion in the F2F.

Thank you.



To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed
from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel-reqts/members/leave_workgroup.php.