Hi Dieter,
Thanks for being flexible on this "GED-vs-LED" issue.
Even though I still think that GED design pattern is very much
preferred over LED and GED will be used as much as possible similar to
the Schema for WSDL 2.0 and Normative Schema for XML Schema 1.0, ... I
totally agree with you that that we should take this "GED-vs-LED" issue
out of resolution text.
Given that I would suggest some further clarification/amendments to the
proposal:
For (1) and (2):
-----------------------------
(1) One WS-BPEL 2.0 XML schema for validation of Executable Processes
(2) One WS-BPEL 2.0 XML schema for validation of Abstract Processes Base
Note:
- If some XSD definition and declaration can be used between in (1)
and (2), it will be factored into a "core" XSD file.
- (2) is defined for the A.P. Base. There may be additional XSD for
profiles.
-----------------------------
Then, the next point that that I would like to mention is: IMHO, we
should maintain a relation between one target namespace, one XML Schema
(or one set of XML Schema files connected by <xsd:include>).
Because, the way that we did it in BPEL 1.1 is a bad practice of schema
and I have not seen similar patterns in the other specs. As I
mentioned, BPEL 1.1 way to split one namespace into multiple
*disconnected* schema documents, similar to having one package of Java
classes archived into multiple jar files.
If people agree with that I say so far, there are two ways for
us to maintain this cleaner relationship between namespace and schema.
Decision points: whether we want to keep "property",
"propertyAlias",
"service-ref" in the same namespace of the Exec BPEL.
If yes, [A] I would suggest to declare those 3 elements into
XSD of (1) as well.
If no, [B] I would suggest:
- To have one namespace in "property" and "propertyAlias", e.g.
".../wsbpel/property.xsd"
- To have one namespace in "property" and "propertyAlias", e.g.
".../wsbpel/service-ref"
- Then, we have two more XSD files.
I don't have a strong preference between [A] and [B]. They are both OK
to me as long as we don't need to spilt the XSD of the same namespace
into multiple disconnected pieces.
Further thoughts?
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
Alex, minimizing the number of GEDs is preferable, however, we believe that
it is more important to get to a resolution at this point in time.
Kind Regards
DK
Dieter König Mail: dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
Senior Technical Staff Member Tel (office): (+49) 7031-16-3426 Schönaicher Strasse 220
Architect, Business Process Choreographer Fax (office): (+49) 7031-16-4890 71032 Böblingen
Member, Technical Expert Council Tel (home office): (+49) 7032-201464 Germany
Alex Yiu
<alex.yiu@oracle.
com> To
Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
26.06.2006 21:39 cc
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org, Alex
Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>
Subject
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 294.1 -
Proposal for Vote
Question:
Your proposal does not mention the GED-vs-LED decision issue. Did you make
it silent intentionally? Or, your team may still have a preference?
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
Hi Alex, can you elaborate which part is not clear from your point of
view?
Kind Regards
DK
Dieter König Mail:
dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
Senior Technical Staff Member Tel (office): (+49)
7031-16-3426 Schönaicher Strasse 220
Architect, Business Process Choreographer Fax (office): (+49)
7031-16-4890 71032 Böblingen
Member, Technical Expert Council Tel (home office): (+49)
7032-201464 Germany
Alex Yiu
<alex.yiu@oracle.
com>
To
Dieter
Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE
23.06.2006 21:52
cc
wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org,
Alex
Yiu <alex.yiu@oracle.com>
Subject
Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 294.1 -
Proposal for Vote
Hi Dieter and others,
Part of this proposal is not that clear about its intent.
Upon receiving clarification, I may need to make some amendment or
submit a brand new proposal.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex Yiu
Dieter Koenig1 wrote:
Based on the issue 294.2 resolution proposal, we propose that
the WS-BPEL
XML Schema artifacts are restructured as follows:
Submitter's proposal:
Refactor the WS-BPEL 2.0 XML schema artifacts into the
following:
(a) One WS-BPEL 2.0 XML schema for validation of Executable
Processes
(b) One WS-BPEL 2.0 XML schema for validation of Abstract
Processes
(c) One WS-BPEL 2.0 WSDL extension XML schema for validation of
Properties
and Property Aliases - same target namespace as (a)
(d) One WS-BPEL 2.0 XML schema for Service Reference variable
declarations
in Executable or Abstract Processes - same target namespace as
(a)
Note: the target namespace values for (a) and (b) are valid
URLs that can
point to the location of the two artifacts, respectively.
Kind Regards
DK
Dieter König Mail:
dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com
IBM Deutschland Entwicklung GmbH
Senior Technical Staff Member Tel (office): (+49)
7031-16-3426 Schönaicher Strasse 220
Architect, Business Process Choreographer Fax (office): (+49)
7031-16-4890 71032 Böblingen
Member, Technical Expert Council Tel (home office):
(+49)
7032-201464 Germany
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC
that
generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your
TCs in
OASIS
at:
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
|