RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115: Proposal to vote

["Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>]

Appendix C is in essence self contained as it stands if the references
to WS-BA are removed.  The main work is to make sure that it is a
complete and internally consistent description of our semantics, adding
further explanations that are needed for clarity. 

-----Original Message-----
From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:17 PM
To: Satish Thatte; 'Monica J. Martin'; 'Diane Jordan'
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115: Proposal to vote

Satish,

I get scared if you say it's a lot of work, without knowing what the lot
of work is!!!!
However I appreciate you not wanting to do all that work if guys like me
are going to vote no after:-)

Maybe as a compromise, some more detail on what you propose to change
from the current appendix C will help.

Martin.


>-----Original Message-----
>From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] 
>Sent: 08 June 2004 21:03
>To: Martin Chapman; Monica J. Martin; Diane Jordan
>Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115: Proposal to vote
>
>
>What is it that you are concerned about?  It is a lot of work 
>to do without approval.  I don't mind not adding this appendix 
>- it is just an aid to understanding the specification.  I 
>will let the TC decide if this is needed.
>
>Satish
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Martin Chapman [mailto:martin.chapman@oracle.com] 
>Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 1:00 PM
>To: Satish Thatte; 'Monica J. Martin'; 'Diane Jordan'
>Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115: Proposal to vote
>
>I would have to agree with Monica that this is not at the 
>granulity to hand off to the editorial team. I really would 
>like to see revised text before voting on this issue.
>
>Cheers,
>   Martin.
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
>>Sent: 08 June 2004 20:46
>>To: Monica J. Martin; Diane Jordan
>>Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115: Proposal to vote
>>
>>
>>Fairly straightforward I think.  Appendix C is primarily a
>>state machine which explains the "protocol" between nested 
>>scopes in BPEL.  There is no essential dependency on any 
>>external specification.  It is simply an aid to understanding 
>>our rather intricate fault and compensation handling 
>>semantics.  That is how the new version of the appendix would 
>>be written, i.e., as an explanation of BPEL inter-scope 
>>semantics with no references to external specifications.
>>
>>Satish
>>
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
>>Sent: Tuesday, June 08, 2004 12:41 PM
>>To: Diane Jordan
>>Cc: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 115: Proposal to vote
>>
>>Diane Jordan wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> I think our process calls for this resolution to be 
>approved and then 
>>> the spec editing team to work up the revised appendix which
>>would then
>>
>>> be approved by the TC in the next update.
>>
>>mm1: Diane, given the context of the discussion regarding Issue 30 and
>>53-59 and the subsequent opening of 115, how can we evaluate the 
>>re-inclusion of Appendix C with no information? Thanks.
>>
>>
>>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/lea
>ve_workgr
>oup.php.
>
>