Re: [wsbpel] Issue 247

[Thomas Schulze <ThomasSchulze@de.ibm.com>]

Hi Mark,

1) We have currently different approaches. Appendix A-G does not say
anything (in the heading) while H says it is normative and I and J say they
are not normative. I think this must be discussed in a call and the result
should be applied to all appendixes. I would prefer that each appendix says
in the heading if it is normative or not.

2) I've discussed this shortly with Vinky and I think we agreed that this
chapter applies to both kinds of processes, executable and abstract. Rules
which apply to only one of them should be marked in the description
accordingly. That are currently SA15 (see Issue 292), SA32 and SA88.
There are some other rules which might need to be adapted like SA15. IMO
that are: SA59, SA62 and SA64. Of course, the spec text from where these
rules come might be adapted, too.
IMO all other rules apply to both kinds.

3) I have not seen any objection to that yet, so I've removed these
statements where possible.

Other changes:
I've dropped SA74, because it's a duplicate of SA73.

Best regards/Mit freundlichen Grüßen,

       Thomas Schulze



                                                                       
             "Mark Ford"                                               
             <mark.ford@active                                         
             -endpoints.com>                                            To
                                       Thomas Schulze/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
             31.05.2006 19:56                                           cc
                                       <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>,  
                                       "'Mehta, Vinkesh \(US - Austin\)'"
                                       <vmehta@DELOITTE.com>           
                                                                   Subject
                                       [wsbpel] Issue 247              
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       
                                                                       




I'd like to propose that we adopt Vinky's latest submission as the proposed
appendix but I think there are a couple of small things to iron out first.


1) The sub heading of the appendix says that it's non-normative but the 2nd
paragraph hints that the section is normative although subordinate to the
main document in case of discrepancy. Do we have similar (Non-Normative)
indicators on other appendices?


2) As Rania pointed out in the call today, these requirements should apply
to executable processes. I was initially ok with adding something to the
introductory paragraph making this explicit but there are some rules that
apply to both and some rules that apply to only executable. For example,
can an abstract process use WSDL with overloaded operations? Should we add
another column onto the list indicating if the rule applies to an abstract
process, executable process, or both? I found one rule that applies to only
abstract processes SA00088 but this rule refers to Section 13.3.4 which
doesn't exist anymore so perhaps it's no longer valid.


3) Some of the rules contain the text "This requirement MUST be statically
enforced." This is likely a result of this statement occuring in the
original section that the rule was extracted from. It seems redundant to
state that the rule MUST be statically enforced since if it didn't need to
be then why is it in the appendix? This statement should either be on all
of the rules or none of the rules. My preference is for removing it.