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

["Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

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
WS-I?

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.

	Yaron

> -----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 
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgroup.
php.

<<attachment: winmail.dat>>