RE: [wsbpel] BPEL potential issue - no explicit conformance statements

["Tony Fletcher" <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>]

Dear Yaron and others,

I was sort of half expecting someone to raise that point.

I currently think the answer is twofold.

Firstly having a specific section gives implementers a first 'port of call'
- somewhere they can start there search for precisely what the need to make
their implementation do to conform to the specification - if they should
choose to conform.

Secondly, and perhaps this is key, it seems to me that there are different
'things' that can be claimed to comply (or claimed not to comply) and I
think that different statements apply to each.  So I have suggested
different sub-sections for BPEL documents, tools and engines.  Open to
suggestions for more or less 'things'.

And a third is that it is a good practice that is followed in very many
other specifications such as those for WSDL and XML that BPEL builds upon.
Why did the writers of those specifications see fit to include explicit
conformance sections when they also use the same language MUST, MAY and
SHOULD?

Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
 
Cohesions  (TM)
 
Business transaction management software for application coordination
www.choreology.com
 
Choreology Ltd., 68 Lombard Street, London EC3V 9LJ     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537   Fax: +44 (0) 870 7390077  Mobile: +44 (0) 7801
948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)

 


-----Original Message-----
From: Yaron Y. Goland [mailto:ygoland@bea.com] 
Sent: 26 August 2004 19:20
To: Tony Fletcher
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] BPEL potential issue - no explicit conformance
statements


The BPEL specification already has a very clear conformance statement in 
section 2 where it defines MUST, MAY and SHOULD. In reading the proposed 
conformance text I don't see anything that isn't redundant with the 
existing requirements language in the spec. As such I am unclear as to 
what value the proposed text would add.

	Thanks,

		Yaron

Tony Fletcher wrote:

> 
> Dear Colleagues,
>  
> I would like to submit the attached on Conformance.  I am sorry to 
> have
> only got around recently to waking up to this aspect and doing something 
> about it, but I have tried to provide some initial text for others to 
> comment on and knock into shape.  My aim is to help produce a complete 
> and rounded specification and I regard being clear on conformance as an 
> important part of this.
>  
> 
> Best Regards,
> 
> Tony /                           /
> 
> / <http://www.choreology.com/> /
> 
> 	
> 
> Tony Fletcher
> 
> Technical Advisor
> Choreology Ltd.
> 68, Lombard Street, London EC3V 9L J   UK
> 
> Phone:
> 
> 	
> 
> +44 (0) 1473 729537
> 
> Mobile:
> 
> 	
> 
> +44 (0) 7801 948219/ /
> 
> Fax:   
> 
> 	
> 
> +44 (0) 870 7390077
> 
> Web:
> 
> 	
> 
> /www.choreology.com <http://www.choreology.com/> /
> 
> CohesionsT
> 
> Business transaction management software for application coordination
> 
> Work: tony.fletcher@choreology.com
> 
> Home: amfletcher@iee.org <mailto:amfletcher@iee.org>
> 
>  
> 
> 
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> --
> 
> 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.