OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel-spec-edit message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]

Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] Summary of today's editors' call

Hi Kevin,

>Prasad will also scan the BP-I inconsistencies reported by Kevin relative to the resolution of >issue 128.

On the editors' call this week I was asked to scan the proposed changes to WS-I BP compliance. I have a one minor comment that is applicable in a few places:

1. SECTION 6.1 proposed change 1:

	I would suggest moving the xsd namespace declaration to the definitions level so that all namespaces used are at the top level.
        Alternatively since we already added namespace declarations in section 2, should this simply become a "..." valued one in the example or simply removed? I believe we settled on the latter.
2.  SECTION 10.2 - Violation 4, proposed change (1): same comment as above. I think we should simply remove the namespace declaration on the schema element, add the targetNamespace however.

<xsd:schema targetNamespace = "http://example.com/po.xsd"
xmlns:xsd = "http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema"

3. SECTION 16.1.1:  (Violation 7):  Same coment as above

<xsd:schematargetNamespace = "http://example.com/ship.xsd"
xmlns:xsd = "

That is all. Otherwise it looks great to me.

Thanks, Prasad

Satish Thatte wrote:
Issues 37, 75, 94 and 114 were indeed incorporated by Alex on June 30.  They should be removed from the list of "not yet incorporated" issues.

Issue 126 is not officially resolved.  It should also be removed from that list.

Prasad will incorporate issues 43 and 44.  He has the pen.

Alex will then incorporate 34.  Prasad will pass him the pen, hopefully by the weekend.  There may be a minor clarification needed on whether the reference-schema attribute is required.  We need to put this on the TC call agenda for next week.  But Alex will go ahead and make the minor change needed later if the TC decides to make this attribute optional (it is currently required).

Prasad will also scan the BP-I inconsistencies reported by Kevin relative to the resolution of issue 128.  Paco, if you can also take a look that would be great.

Assuming everyone agrees with Kevin's list of BP-I fixes, Kevin should incorporate them as the resolution for 128.  Kevin, can you take the pen after Alex?

Yaron has agreed to incorporate 84 but we will defer that until he feels ready.  Yaron mentioned 9 as a blocking problem -- I just looked at it and I do not believe it is a blocking issue.  We have mandated static analysis at various places in the spec in order to apply *syntactic* correctness rules that cannot be conveniently expressed in schema.  I see 84 as relating to those cases.  Yaron, if you disagree we need to discuss.

I will follow up on resolving the remaining aspects of Issue 10, and will incorporate 1 and 10 after Kevin is done.


From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:20 AM
To: Prasad Yendluri
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] call today 9:30 PDT

This is the list as Peter sees it.  Let us verify what is already done.  

Thanks for offering to take three issues.  I am wondering if 10 should be deferred until we have thought through the "reentrancy" aspects.

Let us discuss in a few minutes.

From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:10 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] call today 9:30 PDT

To save some time on the call, I thought I would volunteer to take some of the issues.
Looking through the issues, I believe Alex already took care of 37, 75, 94 and 114. 
Also I guess we already applied 105 sometime back (though we just closed the issue at SFO f2f).

That leaves 1, 10, 34, 43, 44, 84, 126 and 128.

Working top down and leaving issues that are better handled by others, I can do 10,43 and 44.

Thanks, Prasad

------- Original Message -------- 
[wsbpel-spec-edit] call today 9:30 PDT
Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:26:32 -0700
Satish Thatte <satisht@microsoft.com>
bpel spec <wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org>

Sorry about being tardy with this.  I have been swamped - vacations have
evil consequences.  We have a lot of issues to incorporate.  Once we
finish with this we are charged with producing a clean draft.  The focus
today should be on making a schedule for the resolved issues (list
below).  I realize that there is unfinished technical resolution
business related to Issue 10.


Issue 1
Permeability of scopes

Issue 10
Serialization of compensation

Issue 34
Dependency on Proprietary Specifications

Issue 37
Initiating Correlation Set More Than Once

Issue 43
Setting up Periodic Alarms

Issue 44
portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType

Issue 75
Locally Scoped partnerLink declarations

Issue 84
Require Static Analysis Description & List

Issue 94
Allow both "compensate" and other activities in compensation or fault

Issue 105
XML namespaces used in spec and examples need to be defined

Issue 114
Multiple Correlation Sets

Issue 126
Event Handlers with local partnerLinks & Correlation Sets

Issue 128
WS-I BP Incompatible WSDL Import

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]