Hi,
Personally, I hope there would be some output from Abstract BPEL
subgroup that can be consumed by the main BPEL TC within a number of
weeks.
My gut feelings is telling me that:
Before the BPEL TC itself finalizes the shapes and detailed semantics
of abstract BPEL, anything detailed discussion on whether / how to
register BPEL in UDDI will not yield any fruitful result.
Just my 2 cents.
Thanks.
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Danny van der Rijn wrote:
paco -
i just skimmed it, and my impression hasn't changed.
as a case in point, here are the first two sentences of the abstract:
"BPEL4WS abstract
processes describe the observable behavior of Web services. They
complement abstract
WSDL interfaces (port types and operations) and the UDDI model
by defining
dependencies between service operations in the context of a message
exchange."
this sentiment,
especially of the first sentence, is echoed many times throughout the
Note. most of the time without the 2nd half of the second sentence to
slightly temper the connotation.
someone who isn't
reading this with the background of the large conversation that is
going on in our TC could easily be led to believe in the existence of
the correspondence between Abstract WSDL and Abstract BPEL that I
mentioned before.
while i don't
completely think that this paper is off base, i would prefer to be
informed by the work of the abstract BPEL subcommittee before rendering
final judgement (my point 1 below). as for point 2, i can't help but
think that unless the wording of this paper is changed to be extremely
cautious around the definition and explanation of Abstract BPEL, it
will only lead to further confusion.
-----
Original Message -----
Sent:
Wednesday, August 04, 2004 1:35 PM
Subject:
Re: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC
Technical Note - Review Requested
Danny,
You should read the proposal. I think it makes a lot of sense, even if I
would have my own set of comments and suggestions to make. Many of us
assume that abstract BPEL will likely become the premier mechanism to
encode behavior (protocol) information in a service description. I don't
think many people would argue with this notion.
Also, this is the first time I have heard of anyone misinterpreting
"abstract" as in "abstract BPEL" to mean "WSDL abstract" as in "port
type".
Paco
Danny van
der
Rijn To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
<dannyv@tibco.com
cc:
> Subject: Re:
[wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC
Technical
Note - Review
Requested
08/04/2004
03:52
PM
as i said in conference today, i am afraid that the UDDI TC is even more
confused about what Abstract BPEL is than we are. other than pointing
out
even more strongly the importance of getting our definition of Abstract
BPEL pinned down, i think that this note should lead us in 2 directions:
1) finding out why someone would want to register an Abstract BPEL with
UDDI.
2) changing the name of Abstract BPEL. this is not the first time i've
seen someone confuse the relationship between Abstract BPEL and
Executable
BPEL to conflate it with the relationship between Abstract WSDL and
Concrete WSDL, and unless we change the name, i'm sure it won't be the
last.
i admit, i haven't read the UDDI proposal referenced in this note, but i
feel pretty safe in my assumption without having read it.
danny
----- Original Message -----
From: Luc Clement
To: drj@us.ibm.com ; jevdemon@microsoft.com
Cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
; Karl F.
Best ; James Bryce Clark ; Mary McRae ; Tony Rogers
Sent: Tuesday, August 03, 2004 5:58 PM
Subject: [wsbpel] "Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI registry" OASIS UDDI Spec TC
Technical Note - Review Requested
Dear WSBPEL Chairs,
The UDDI Spec TC has been working on a “Using BPEL4WS in a UDDI
registry”
Technical Note (TN) that it would like your input on before proceeding
to
ratify this TN.
The TN provides a mapping for publishing BPEL4WS abstract processes
into a
UDDI registry. The primary goals of mapping BPEL4WS artifacts to the
UDDI
model are to:
1. Enable the automatic registration of BPEL4WS definitions in UDDI
2. Enable optimized and flexible UDDI queries based on specific
BPEL4WS
artifacts and metadata
3. Provide composability with the mapping described in the "Using
WSDL
in a UDDI Registry, Version 2.0.2" [1] Technical Note.
We would like to invite the BPEL TC to review and comment on the
document
and ask that you assign two or more reviewers.
The TN is posted at the following locations by format:
PDF:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/8442/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.pdf
MSWord:
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/uddi-spec/download.php/8441/uddi-spec-tc-tn-bpel-20040725.doc
We would appreciate comments as soon as possible but preferably before
31
Aug 04. Please submit comments:
To: Claus von Riegen, SAP (claus.von.riegen@sap.com),
cc: (UDDI Chairs): luc.clement@systinet.com;
tony.rogers@ca.com
cc: uddi-spec@lists.oasis-open.org
Thanks in advance
Luc Clément
Co-Chair OASIS UDDI Spec TC
Systinet Corporation
Tel: +1.617.395.6798
[1] OASIS UDDI Spec TC Technical Note: “Using WSDL in a UDDI Registry,
Version 2.0.2”,
http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/uddi-spec/doc/tns.htm#WSDLTNV2
|