Issue 82 - editing

["Mehta, Vinkesh \(US - Austin\)" <vmehta@DELOITTE.com>]

Title: Issue 82 - editing

Hello,

As we were discussing in the meeting today, part of issue 82 edits required me to add the following new sentence at the end of section 15.1:

"A WS-BPEL abstract or executable process defined in BPEL 2.0 when referencing common base or profile abstract process should only reference namespace of a BPEL version 2.0 common base or profile abstract process."

Please review the above text. Satish was part of the original discussion so his input would be valuable.

For your convenience, I have provided the relevant section from the issue 82 proposal text and the minutes of meeting from April 6 below:

Regards,
-Vinky

Proposal text:
---------------------
Editor’s Note: add note about profile/base versioning from Monica. See minutes of April 6 for decision. (from Rania: I don’t have the minutes yet..)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Minutes from April 6
-----------------------------

Monica: To discuss my subissue - in making explicit common base definitions, we will have some attributes in the common base - where the common base won't change although things around it may. As of now it is implicit, but it should be explicit for clarity and strictness.

Rania: I'm confused here - would a profile defer to common base? Or to another profile?
Monica: Haven't discussed the latter, but a profile can be based on the common base, as well as on another profile; my proposal only refers to the base - is the common base implicit, or does it not change across BPEL versions?

Satish: Namespaces used in execBPEL have to be tied to the current version not and not dependent on BPEL 2.0 - do we need to prepare for absBPEL tying to the common base?

Rania: Versioning with base works as follows: Bases may vary across versions
Monica: Let's make it explicit then - to clarify text that absBPEL refers to BPEL 2.0 ns relates to BPEL 2.0 base and not that of another version

Satish: I agree, but I'm only concerned that if we say something explicitly for absBPEL, then will have to do same for execBPEL to ensure that we are not implying that such strictures do not apply to execBPEL.

Satish: It should be a global statement
Diane: Yes, similar to what we said about issue 86
Rania: What about saying "any profiles defined in BPEL 2.0 refer to the 2.0 base"
Monica: That sounds good
Satish: I think we all agree on substance, but want to say in way that is not too specific to absBPEL, as explicit statements should not be partial; this ends up becoming more an issue of editorial clarity than anything else.

Rania: I agree
Monica: The question is still open on whether we want to address it or not
Diane: I suggest for clarification that we make a note that a) Monica's proposal seems desirable and b) we ask the editor committee to ensure that it is incorporated in a fashion that is not too specific.

Rania: As such we should be ok to move on Monica's proposal
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vinkesh O. Mehta
Manager
Deloitte Consulting LLP
 
Mobile: + 1 512 750 2006
vmehta@deloitte.com
www.deloitte.com
 
400 West 15th Street, Suite 1700
Austin, TX 78701-1648
USA

This message (including any attachments) contains confidential information intended for a specific individual and purpose, and is protected by law.  If you are not the intended recipient, you should delete this message. 

Any disclosure, copying, or distribution of this message, or the taking of any action based on it, is strictly prohibited. [v.E.1]