RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] updated spec committed

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Dear Editors,

After Paco is done, I suggest the following assignments

Alex:  102, 103, 111.1 (XSD) 

Assaf: 29, 81, 160

Satish: 86, 130, 139, 186

Yaron: 132, 136, 154

Passing the pen in that order.  I believe Alex and Assaf are up and
running with SourceForge.  Alex needs to finish the XSD work on 111.1
which Paco has completed in the text.  Yaron and I are not yet up with
SourceForge, so this lets us procrastinate a bit more.  Putting Yaron
last to give him time to hit us with the 22 additional issues he is
working on :-)

Let me know if this is acceptable.

We still have 126, 140 and 163 open for other editors to volunteer for.

Satish

 -----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte 
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 10:09 AM
To: 'Francisco Curbera'; bpel spec
Cc: 'ygoland@bea.com'
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] updated spec committed

Yaron and Paco need to sync up and tell us the status of 93 and 112.
Paco still has the pen.  More mail on issues will follow.

-----Original Message-----
From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:curbera@us.ibm.com] 
Sent: Saturday, April 02, 2005 10:10 PM
To: bpel spec
Subject: [wsbpel-spec-edit] updated spec committed

I took the job of applying the following issue resolutions: 12.1, 93,
111.1
and 112.

- 12.1 had already been applied (in fact I had already done so a month
ago
- we need to update the "Resolved issues awaiting editing into spec"
table).

- 93 has been applied to the spec AND the wsbpel_main.xsd schema. Note
that
the last text change for section 13.4 was defined in the resolution
terms
of the pre-12.1 text; the post-12.1 text already incorporates an
equivalent
change - Yaron, can you please check?

- 111.1 has been applied to the spec, but I agreed to work with Alex on
the
schema; I believe Alex will be taking a first pass at updating
wsbpel_main.xsd once he get the pen.

- 112 - I am a bit unsure about what is the final resolution for this
one;
Yaron's resolution was amended (by me and Danny) to use the form

<toPart part="ncname" fromVariable="ncname"/>

and to not require a precise ordering of parts; I am not sure if this
amendments apply as well to the <fromPart...> spec, or the <fromPart...>
spec was left as in the original proposal. The minutes do not seem to
say
anything so I would appreciate everyone's help in reconstructing what
exactly was decided (Yaron as the sponsor of the resolution probably
remembers better than me) - then I will dutifully apply it to the spec.

So I am keeping the pen for now, pending some clarification on 112.

Thanks,

Paco