RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Revised proposal to discuss

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Hi Peter,

Two comments on your point P below:

- I don't understand why the word "erroneous" has been dropped. Cases like the ones I mentioned in the past where the syntax used in the WSDL 1.1 spec is inconsistent with the syntax defined in the corresponding schema cannot be classified as underspecified (in a way they are "overspecified").

- The phrase "will normally be followed" is weak and ambiguous (are there cases when it might not be followed? what type of cases are those? etc.)

Ugo

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 03, 2003 9:00 AM
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsbpel] 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
> discussions)
> 
> 
> 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
> possible.
> 
> 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.
> 
> 
> 
> 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/leave_workgroup.php.