Issue - 286 - Import in AP: basic executable completion

[ws-bpel issues list editor <peter.furniss@erebor.co.uk>]

This issue has been added to the wsbpel issue list with a status of "received". The status will be changed to "open" if a motion to open the issue is proposed and that motion is approved by the TC. A motion could also be proposed to close it without further consideration. Otherwise it will remain as "received".

The issues list is posted as a Technical Committee document to the OASIS WSBPEL TC pages on a regular basis. The current edition, as a TC document, is the most recent version of the document entitled in the "Issues" folder of the WSBPEL TC document list - the next posting as a TC document will include this issue. The list editor's working copy, which will normally include an issue when it is announced, is available at this constant URL.

Issue - 286 - Import in AP: basic executable completion

Status: received
Date added: 8 May 2006
Date submitted: 08 May 2006
Submitter: Rania Khalaf
Description: The AP basic completion rules were defined before BPEL mandatory <import>s were introduced. The question that is open now is how do they affect the basic executable completion rule that is used to syntactically validate an Abstract Process (from any profile).

Currently, the basic exec completion is :

> A Basic Executable Completion of an Abstract Process is defined as an Executable Completion whose allowed syntactic transformations are limited to Opaque Token Replacement, plus the addition of an activity with createInstance="yes" if none are present in the Abstract Process (per clause [5] of section 13.1.3. Hiding Syntactic Elements).

Where 1b1 is:

• Opaque Token Replacement: Replacing every opaque token (including those omitted using the omission-shortcut) with a corresponding Executable token. For example, replacing an opaque activity with an <empty>.

So, without changing anything and taking the usage of <import> means that one cannot (1) use wsdl/xsd/etc artifacts in the AP that have not been defined in an imported documents and (2) replace opaque tokens with artifacts not defined in these documents for the basic exec completion.

The question is do we want to allow (1) and (2), or just (2), or niether?

This affects section 13.1 and the two profiles (they have to decide whether their completions allow adding arbitrary imports, aside from the basic exec profile )
Changes: 8 May 2006 - new issue

---

To comment on this issue (including whether it should be accepted), please follow-up to this announcement on the wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org list (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list), or ensure the subject line as you send it starts "Issue - 286 - [anything]" or is a reply to such a message. If you want to formally propose a resolution to an open issue, please start the subject line "Issue - 286 - Proposed resolution", without any Re: or similar.

To add a new issue, see the issues procedures document (but the address for new issue submission is the sender of this announcement).