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


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

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

Subject: Issue - 72 - Revised proposal to discuss

After the last attempt, let's have another try.  I'm putting this out as
for discussion - I'm hoping the proposal at the bottom will stabilise
enough by about Thursday to try for a vote on Wednesday week.

To achieve a consensus I think we will need to be more circumspect and
limited in how much we reference BP. The critical question seems to be
getting the scope situation clear. I believe people are agreed that

	BPEL things using/operating with the BP 1.0 referenced
specifiations should be able to follow BP 1.0
	BPEL things need use/operate with things that go beyond the BP
1.0 referenced specifications
	BPEL should not perversely take a different interpretation of
underspecified WSDL 1.1 features from that taken by BP 1.0

(deliberately hand-waving on exactly what "things" covers).

I'm less sure on whether there is agreement on

	BPEL things using/operating with the BP 1.0 referenced
specifications should be able to go beyond BP 1.0 limitations

One position would just be to say "BPEL implementations stand or fall on
their compliance to BP 1.0 as WSDL, SOAP etc implmentations, in the
(common) case that they are implementations of such. BPEL as such has
nothing to say on BP 1.0, and the fact that a BPEL implementation also
implements the BP 1.0-referenced specs does not impact the BPEL
aspects.". Effectively wash our hands of the whole matter. (There have
been strong statements against this sort of position in the previous

How about, as a proposed resolution:

Given that the scope of BP is confined to the specifications it
references, and that BPEL is of wider application:

P) In developing the BPEL language, where reference is made to
specifications that are in BP 1.0 scope, the BP 1.0 interpretations of
underspecified features will normally be followed. 

Q) Where use-cases and use-case artifacts are in BP 1.0 scope (i.e.
using referenced specifications) they will be BP 1.0 compliant, if

R) The requirement (or non-requirement) of BP 1.0 compliance of BPEL
engines or deployed processes is not affected by their use of BPEL. 

Better phrasing of any of those welcome.  They are deliberately silent
on some points that could be expanded.

The "if possible" on Q is intended to allow a use-case that deals with
handling non-BP 1.0 web-services, if anyone wants to define such. Such a
use-case clearly cannot have BP 1.0 compliant artifacts and achieve it's
purpose as a use-case.

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