RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 294.1 - Proposal for Vote

Hi Alex,

Thanks for putting this together. My comments are inline below.

Cheers,

-Charlton.

From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 27, 2006 3:06 PM
To: Dieter Koenig1
Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org; Alex Yiu
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 294.1 - Proposal for Vote

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

[cb] This makes sense to me. I would only change #2 to read: “One WS-BPEL 2.0 XML schema for validation of Abstract Process Common 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.

[cb] I prefer this approach. I do not perceive any negative effects from having these in the same namespace. These all reference basic BPEL elements that apply to ExecBPEL, and it makes sense for AbsBPEL to derive them from ExecBPEL.

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.

[cb] Agreed. Splitting the XSD as you describe would introduce needless complexity and have a generally negative effect. As indicated earlier, I prefer [A] over [B].

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

wsbpel message