[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
Peter, Yaron, Regarding the XML 1.0 vs. XML 2.0 issue, sec. 2 of BP 1.0 clearly states: "The scope of the Profile delineates the technologies that it addresses; in other words, the Profile only attempts to improve interoperability within its own scope. Initially, the Profile's scope is bounded by the specifications referenced by it; for a complete list of the Profile's referenced specifications, see Appendix I". and the list in Appendix I specifies XML 1.0 and WSDL 1.1. Since the current version of BPEL uses those specs, it falls within the scope of BP 1.0. It certainly makes sense that when a new version of XML comes out BPEL will want to take advantage of it. Will BPEL try to use XML 2.0 and still use WSDL 1.1? If that's the case, then BPEL would fall out of scope for BP 1.0. If, as it is more likely to happen, a future version of BPEL decided to use XML 2.0 and WSDL 2.0, then BPEL will likely fall under the scope of a new BP version, let's say BP 2.0, which defines XML 2.0 and WSDL 2.0 under its scope. Ugo > -----Original Message----- > From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com] > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:07 AM > To: ygoland@bea.com; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote > > > Yaron, > > I believe the (rough) consensus of the group is as your last > paragraph - > at least BP 1.0, not only BP 1.0 - so it's a matter of getting clear > wording not different intent. In the light of the discussion when Ugo > proposed the wording of A, I don't think the sort of restriction in > R2011 was intended (selecting from a possible choice), but > only in cases > where BP clarified/corrected WSDL, when BPEL should follow the BP > interpretation. Actually, "interpret .. contradictory" is even more > flexible than "follow BP ", I think. > > However, on looking through BP 1.0 in order to find an example, there > don't seem to be many, if any, cases of real clarification. > As I see it, > A (whatever it ends up saying) is a policy decision > applicable to future > detailed issues and editing. (and we might, if we really thought it > right, contradict the policy in a particular case, though > no-one can yet > see a case where we could even think of it) > > On re-reading BP, a crucial thing to get clear in one's mind is the > scope (or, perhaps one could say "target") of the profile. The comment > that appears after R2401 (itself well below the BPEL horizon) is > illuminating - the presence of non-BP bindings in a wsdl description > does not make the description non-compliant (at least, I assume that's > what is meant - it certainly makes sense). I couldn't find clearly > stated exactly how that scoping is to be considered, though from Ugo's > comments early in this thread, it seems to be something like > "if you do > this kind of thing, then you are compliant if and only if you do it > exactly this way; but if you aren't doing this kind of thing, this > profile has nothing to say". That begs the question on the > multi-capable > entity and the negative requirements in BP - to take your > example, if a > future implementation can handle XML 1.0 and XML 2.0, can it > claim to be > fully BP-compliant because it can use use 1.0 but is out of scope when > using 2.0. > > > Can you suggest text to clarify A ? > > Peter > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: Yaron Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] > > Sent: 24 October 2003 02:01 > > To: Furniss, Peter; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote > > > > > > I would not be comfortable voting for this proposed > > resolution without a detailed definition of what point A > > means. I know UGO pointed out some sections and if you > > believe those sections are a complete list then they should > > be directly included in the motion. > > > > Just to give an example, R2011 specifies that one can only > > import XML schemas defined using XML 1.0. Well if XML 1.1 or > > XML 2.0 or whatever comes out and I want to use it then I > > will use it and the BPEL standard has absolutely no business > > telling me otherwise. It's one thing to say 'thou shalt > > minimally support 1.0' it is a whole other thing to say 'thou > > shalt ONLY support 1.0 and nothing else'. The later > > requirement is inappropriate for BPEL and unfortunately many > > of the BP requirements are written in that format. > > > > I'm happy having us establish a relationship with BP but we > > will need text to make it clear that BP is a minimum, not a > > maximum and therefore we are implementing its requirements in > > a manner that is not wholly consistent with the manner in > > which those requirements are stated. > > > > Or in English, BP may say 'thou shalt only do' but to us this > > means 'that should at least do'. > > > > Yaron > > > > P.S. It should give us all pause for thought that in order to > > use BP we effectively have to re-write it's requirements. > > That doesn't strike me as a good thing and seems like > > something we should communicate back to WS-I. > > > > > -----Original Message----- > > > From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com] > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:49 PM > > > To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > > > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote > > > > > > > > > Following the discussion on issue 72 on the list and on the > > 15 October > > > call, the following resolution is proposed, hoping for a > > vote at the > > > next conference call: > > > > > > > > > A The BPEL language definition shall not interpret > > > underspecified/erroneous WSDL 1.1 features in a way that is > > > contradictory with BP 1.0 interpretation > > > > > > B Use-case artifacts shall be either BP 1.0 compliant or have a > > > necessary and explained reason to be otherwise > > > > > > C Use-cases shall be capable of implementation with > > exclusively BP 1.0 > > > services or have a necessary and explained reason to be otherwise > > > > > > D Conformant bpel engines shall be able to offer and use BP 1.0 > > > services, but are free to implement other bindings and > > encodings even > > > with soap/http > > > > > > E No restriction is made on deployed bpel processes > > > > > > --- > > > These correspond to the A.1 as modified by Ugo, B3, C2, D2 > > > and E2 of the > > > "Some proposals" message > > > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00105.html > > > > > > If you think these aren't right, please propose amendments > > > prior to the > > > meeting so everyone gets a chance to see what's on offer. > > > > > > Peter > > > > > > ------------------------------------------ > > > Peter Furniss > > > Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd > > > > > > Cohesions 1.0 (TM) > > > Business transaction management software for application > > > coordination > > > > > > web: http://www.choreology.com > > > email: peter.furniss@choreology.com > > > phone: +44 870 739 0066 <-- new, from 4 August 2003 > > > mobile: +44 7951 536168 > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > > > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to > > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le > > ave_workgroup.php. > > > > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to > http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le ave_workgroup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]