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: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote


At 10:12 AM 5/26/2004, Satish Thatte wrote:
>Notice I carefully said "abstraction relative to a standards proposal"
>which *could* mean that we don't bind ourselves to a fixed namespace,
>depending on emerging timelines.  I don't think we will delay finishing
>BPEL just because we are waiting for other standards work to be
>completed.

Exactly. which means that we will have to pick some "fixed" thing in order 
to finish off BPEL.

There are only two possible outcomes in the W3C, either a WG to work on 
this issue is chartered or it is not. One outcome may give us warm fuzzies, 
but i don't see how there is any practical effect on this version of BPEL.

I just don't understand why the technique which our sibling TC's are 
adopting won't work for this TC.

To be fair, I suppose it is technically possible to stay completely silent 
on the subject, and hope no one notices yet another chink in the chimera of 
Web Services interoperability.

jeff


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com]
>Sent: Wednesday, May 26, 2004 9:59 AM
>To: Satish Thatte; ygoland@bea.com; 'Ron Ten-Hove'
>Cc: 'Francisco Curbera'; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote
>
>No offence to W3C, but they wouldn't have anything usable for at least
>18 months.
>Do we want to delay BPEL that long?
>
>Martin.
>
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
> >Sent: 26 May 2004 15:59
> >To: ygoland@bea.com; Ron Ten-Hove
> >Cc: Francisco Curbera; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> >Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote
> >
> >
> >I agree with Yaron on this.  I suspect we will have to employ
> >some abstraction relative to a standards proposal because,
> >unlike WSDL 2.0, we have no established prior art to take a
> >dependency on -- at least I haven't seen anyone propose such
> >an alternative dependency.
> >
> >________________________________
> >
> >From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com]
> >Sent: Tue 5/25/2004 11:34 PM
> >To: Ron Ten-Hove
> >Cc: Francisco Curbera; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> >Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Re: Issue 34 - Proposal for vote
> >
> >
> >
> >Issue 34 is not, to the best of my knowledge, an issue upon
> >which there are a large number of dependencies. Furthermore,
> >there is nothing inherent in the W3C process that would
> >prohibit rapid progress on a spec with full adoption in a time
> >span that is shorter than the expected lifespan of this group.
> >Therefore I support delaying a vote on this issue while we see
> >what happens in the W3C.
> >
> >        Yaron
> >
> >Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>
> >> Paco,
> >>
> >>     I appreciate your response, but I respectfully have to
> >say that I
> >> still don't understand the value of delay. To address your points:
> >>
> >>     Let us suppose that we do delay, and that in two or
> >three months a
> >> W3C working group is created to develop WS-MD/WS-A into public
> >> specifications. Could we, the WS-BPEL TC, then take a dependency on
> >> this anticipated new specification? The answer is clearly no, as the
> >> WSDL 2.0 precedent you cited shows. Therefore waiting for such a
> >> working group to form is rather pointless. Or had you in mind
> >> something different from a dependency on such a specification?
> >>
> >>     Our TC has a large number of outstanding issues to be resolved,
> >> many of which "interact" with each other. The sooner we resolve some
> >> issues, the easier it will be to resolve the remaining ones. We do
> >> have a limited amount of time available [1], and deliberate delays
> >> will ultimately delay the completion of our work. (This TC
> >formed over
> >> a year ago; my eldest child has grown over ten centimetres in that
> >> time span! :-)
> >>
> >> -Ron
> >>
> >> [1] Our charter states that "The final draft of the resultant
> >> specification will be due within 9 months of the first
> >meeting", so we
> >> are already late.
> >>
> >> Francisco Curbera wrote:
> >>
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>  >Ron,
> >>  >
> >>  >I was pointing out that things seem to be moving, after the recent
> >> w3c  >submission. Waiting for standards is clearly not a
> >requirements,
> >> as our  >position wrt WSDL 2.0 shows. on the other hand, if a
> >> submitted document  >were to become the seed of a working group we
> >> would have a clear reference  >point to build upon. Since a delay of
> >> this decision comes at essentially no
> >>  >price, it seems unnecessary to rush to close it.
> >>  >
> >>  >Paco
> >>  >
> >>  >
> >>
> >>
> >> 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_work
> >> group.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/lea
>ve_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/leave_workgr
>oup.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/leave_workgroup.php.

Jeff Mischkinsky                      jeff.mischkinsky@oracle.com
Consulting Member Technical Staff     +1(650)506-1975
Director, Web Services Standards      500 Oracle Parkway M/S 4OP9
Oracle Corporation                    Redwood Shores, CA 94065




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