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] Issue 115 - Proposal to vote



I don't understand the logic that a full review of the text is required for this issue as compared to others.  Many of the issues we have passed did not include full resolution and almost never the text.  I think the question at hand is whether the TC thinks appendix c is useful without the references to the other specs.  If so, we should ask the editing committee to remove those references (as we asked them to remove them from other portions of the text).  If not, we should vote against this issue and the appendix will be removed as was originally suggested.  

Regards, Diane
IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
drj@us.ibm.com
(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123



"Furniss, Peter" <Peter.Furniss@choreology.com>

06/25/2004 12:05 PM

To
"Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>, "Satish Thatte" <satisht@microsoft.com>
cc
"Martin Chapman" <martin.chapman@oracle.com>, Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS, <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Subject
RE: [wsbpel] Issue 115 - Proposal to vote





Due to a quirk of the issue list script, this thread wasn't added to the
list until now. Apologies.

On the substance of the discussion - whether we can close 115 without
seeing a draft - I incline to
Martin and Monica's view that it's hard to say "yes, put in a new
appendix C" without seeing it. On
the other hand, I'd be content to resolve the issue, giving sufficient
mandate to the editors (
pronounced Satish in this case, presumably) to do the work, and then
check it on review. Since its
a distinct piece of text, we could perhaps review it as such, rather
than as just part of the
review of the n'th working draft.

Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM]
> Sent: 08 June 2004 21:56
> To: Satish Thatte
> Cc: Martin Chapman; Diane Jordan; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 115: Proposal to vote
>
>
> Satish,
> Thank you for the clarification. However, this is somewhat confusing:
>
>     * The Appendix C is self contained.  It should be complete,
>       consistent and represent the syntax and semantics.
> STRAIGHTFORWARD.
>     * Revision requires deleting dependencies. STRAIGHTFORWARD
>
> So if we have clear semantics and syntax, and we delete the
> dependencies, could I assume it would be straightforward to
> provide an
> update to the team or, as Martin suggested, a detailed explanation of
> the revised Appendix C? Thank you.
>
> >Thatte2: 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.
> >
> >>>Thatte1: 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.
> >>>      
> >>>
>
>
> 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/le
> ave_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_workgroup.php.




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