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: RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote

I opened BP 1.0a and randomly picked an entry, I got R1000 which restricts
which elements may appear in a SOAP fault. 

Is R1000 a fix for an under specified or erroneous feature in the SOAP spec
or an editorial decision by WS-I that additional elements would make it
harder to achieve interoperability? 

If the former, then per point 'a', BPEL must follow it, if the later then it
is merely a BPEL guideline. The ramifications on interoperability are
profound. Who exactly gets to decide what constitutes a fix for an under
specified or erroneous feature and what is just an editorial decision by

So before this group can vote on point 'a' we need to get clarification as
to *exactly* which points in the WS-I spec would be considered requirements
for BPEL under point 'a'.

I also would propose that we change 'c' to read: All BPEL implementations
MUST be configurable such that they will only send and receive messages in a
manner compliant with BP 1.0 for those messaging scenarios encompassed by BP
1.0. But, a BPEL implementation MAY allow the BP 1.0 configuration to be
disabled, even for scenarios encompassed by BP 1.0.


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:Peter.Furniss@choreology.com]
> Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 4:13 AM
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
> Proposed resolution for issue 72:
> Given that the scope of BP is confined to the specifications it
> references, and that BPEL is of wider application:
> a) 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 or erroneous features will normally be followed. 
> b) 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.
> c) The requirement (or non-requirement) of BP 1.0 compliance of BPEL
> engines or deployed processes is not affected by their use of BPEL. 
> ---
> See previous discussion (
> http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue72 )
> for more explanation. The only change from the proposal for discussion
> in http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200311/msg00018.html is
> the addition of "or erroneous" in a).
> To maximise our chances of getting closure on this before 2004, if the
> above is unsatisfactory, please give proposed amendment (or 
> alternative
> text), not just expressions of discomfort.  Please!
> 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 

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>

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