RE: Question on AI 158

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

I think both of you have good points
- the old namespace shouldn't remain in the spec.  It should be replaced
with our current namespace. 

Mike, 
You applied 158 - can you confirm you
did it consistently with the most recent decisions on namespace?

Thanks to all of you for your efforts
to improve the quality of the spec.  
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

"Mark Ford" <mark.ford@active-endpoints.com>

08/16/2006 05:07 PM

To	"'Thomas Schulze'" <ThomasSchulze@de.ibm.com>
cc	Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
Subject	RE: Question on AI 158

My concern is that the two occurrences of the older
WS-BPEL namespace in the
current spec might get missed unless covered by an action item of their
own.

This is why I entered 158. If Issue 289 has changed the namespace then
by
all means use the new namespace, but I think 158 should remain.


-----Original Message-----
From: Thomas Schulze [mailto:ThomasSchulze@de.ibm.com] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 16, 2006 4:08 PM
To: Mark Ford
Cc: Diane Jordan
Subject: Question on AI 158


Hi Mark,

I've just seen your AI 158: "Fix namespace for samples in Section
5. From
http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/ to
urn:oasis:names:tc:wsbpel:2.0:process:executable. This occurs in Section
5.1 and Section 5.2"

IMHO the namespace "urn:oasis:names:tc:wsbpel:2.0:process:executable"
is
replaced with "http://docs.oasis-open.org/wsbpel/2.0/process/executable"
since today's call. That was the intention of Issue 289 / AI 152. Right?

So, if you agree, can this AI be deleted?

Best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

       Thomas Schulze