Re: [wsbpel-reqts] RE: [wsbpel] Agenda update for Dec. 16

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

They should be coming to you from Alex
and Yaron respectively.  We are process wonks, but sometimes we do
the process in the wrong order. ;-)

Regards, Diane
IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709

"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>

12/16/2004 12:52 PM

To	Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
cc	"bpel rqmts" <wsbpel-reqts@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject	[wsbpel-reqts] RE: [wsbpel] Agenda update for Dec. 16

I'm afraid I don't have identified
splits for issues 11 and 12. Did I miss a message or was this clarified
in the meeting ?
 
Peter
-----Original Message-----
From: Diane Jordan [mailto:drj@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: 16 December 2004 13:59
To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [wsbpel] Agenda update for Dec. 16


Here is our agenda for the meeting today and a summary of what was decided
in yesterday's meeting. 
Proposed agenda for Dec. 16 
Requested discussions   
-> Issue 160 
  
 Review all remaining open issues by category (alphabetical order) as time
allows. 

Update from WS-Choreography 

Schedule 
On Thursday we will reserve some time to discuss the schedule and possible
new  checkpoints we may want to establish. 

Next f2f meeting:  choices based on last discussion are the week of
Feb. 21, week of Mar 7 or week of Mar 15 (school break time for some) 
 Summary of Dec 15 Meeting
•         Issue 145 proposal passed with note that
further work is required on the specific language. 
•        Issue 12.1 proposal passed.  Yaron to
open it and 12.2 for the properties related issue.  He will also open
a new issue to clarify rethrow language. 
•        Issue 2.  Ivana will continue to work
on the proposal.   
•        New issue proposed by Alex: vote on whether
it is a bug deferred to next meeting so people can consider it more.  
•        Issue 139 – general agreement in discussion
that we should address this by adding cautionary language in the spec rather
than by trying to fix the issue. 
•        Issue 96 – some agreement that this should
be addressed by cautionary language or note to implementers but more consideration
required. 
•        Issue 11.1 proposal discussed by Alex.  Straw
poll: 
•        Should we get rid of assign.  Y=3, N=15
•        Do we want to fix the extensibility of assign
•        With the proposal in Alex’s email.  Y=11,
N=6 
•        By providing assign with extensibility without
copy. Y=5, N=11 
•        Do we want to expand the BPEL native data
manipulation operation boundary. Y= 12, N=6        
  


Regards, Diane
IBM  Emerging Internet Software Standards
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123, Fax 845-491-5709
Choreology Anti virus scan completed