[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-reqts] [bpel-rqmts[ Jordan 8/29/2003: Issues Categoriesfor Discussion Boundaries
Diane Jordan wrote: > > 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. mm1: No my context with 'bound' was to help focus our discussions rather than random issue discussion. > > 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. > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]