wspbel 4/4/2006: SOAP Binding References in Section 10.3 and 10.4

[Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Today, we discussed that it was outside of BPEL's scope to worry about 
protocol bindings. Reference the discussion on Issue 258 and Alves' 
comment re: SOAP binding ignoring parts.

However, we have such a mention currently in Section 10.3 that reads:

*Implementer's Note:* WS-BPEL treats faults as being based on
abstract WSDL operation definitions, without reference to binding
details. Normally, when sending or receiving a fault, a WS-BPEL
process only deals with the fault information in the abstract fault
message. A WSDL binding is required to transform the abstract fault
message data to or from specific communication media. For SOAP
bindings this means providing transformations between abstract fault
message data and the sub-elements of the SOAP Fault element, namely
the faultcode, faultstring, faultactor and detail elements. However
the WSDL 1.1 standard SOAP binding explicitly precludes mapping any
information from an abstract fault message to a SOAP Fault other
than the contents of the detail element. In other words, there is no
standard way to relate the faultcode, faultstring and faultactor
sub-elements of a SOAP Fault element to data visible to a WS-BPEL
process. Resolutions of this issue are out of scope of this
specification.

And a later reference in Section 10.4:

    If, on the other hand, the response indicates a fault, the faultName
    attribute is used and the variable attribute (or its equivalenet
    <toPart> elements), when present, will indicate a variable of the
    message type for the corresponding fault. WS-BPEL treats faults
    based on abstract WSDL 1.1 operation definitions, without reference
    to binding details. This limits the ability of a WS-BPEL process to
    determine the information transmitted when faults are returned over
    a SOAP binding. See the Implementer’s Note in section 10.3. Invoking
    Web Service Operations - <invoke> for additional details.

This relates likely to: 
http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue170

We have at least two alternatives:

   1. Reconsider what we said today. (opening a larger set of issues)
   2. Shorten text in Section 10.3 to be consistent with Section 10.4.
      I'd opt for the minimal language in Section 10.4 and abbreviating
      any mention in Section 10.3, and perhaps relegating this to text
      rather than an Implementer's Note.

We can discuss on Friday. Thanks.