Yaron,
If you are primarily concerned with point A, I don't fully understand your note. Point A is about clarifying areas that are underspecified or erroneous in the original specs. Are you saying that in the future the interpretation of those areas might change? I would think it unlikely.
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Goland [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, October 23, 2003 6:01 PM
> To: 'Furniss, Peter';
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
>
>
> I would not be comfortable voting for this proposed
> resolution without a detailed definition of what point A
> means. I know UGO pointed out some sections and if you
> believe those sections are a complete list then they should
> be directly included in the motion.
>
> Just to give an example, R2011 specifies that one can only
> import XML schemas defined using XML 1.0. Well if XML 1.1 or
> XML 2.0 or whatever comes out and I want to use it then I
> will use it and the BPEL standard has absolutely no business
> telling me otherwise. It's one thing to say 'thou shalt
> minimally support 1.0' it is a whole other thing to say 'thou
> shalt ONLY support 1.0 and nothing else'. The later
> requirement is inappropriate for BPEL and unfortunately many
> of the BP requirements are written in that format.
>
> I'm happy having us establish a relationship with BP but we
> will need text to make it clear that BP is a minimum, not a
> maximum and therefore we are implementing its requirements in
> a manner that is not wholly consistent with the manner in
> which those requirements are stated.
>
> Or in English, BP may say 'thou shalt only do' but to us this
> means 'that should at least do'.
>
> Yaron
>
> P.S. It should give us all pause for thought that in order to
> use BP we effectively have to re-write it's requirements.
> That doesn't strike me as a good thing and seems like
> something we should communicate back to WS-I.
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 22, 2003 3:49 PM
> > To:
> > Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
> >
> >
> > Following the discussion on issue 72 on the list and on the
> 15 October
> > call, the following resolution is proposed, hoping for a vote at the
> > next conference call:
> >
> >
> > A The BPEL language definition shall not interpret
> > underspecified/erroneous
> > WSDL 1.1 features in a way that is contradictory with BP 1.0
> > interpretation
> >
> > B Use-case artifacts shall be either BP 1.0 compliant or have a
> > necessary and
> > explained reason to be otherwise
> >
> > C Use-cases shall be capable of implementation with
> exclusively BP 1.0
> > services or have a necessary and explained reason to be otherwise
> >
> > D Conformant bpel engines shall be able to offer and use BP 1.0
> > services,
> > but are free to implement other bindings and encodings even with
> > soap/http
> >
> > E No restriction is made on deployed bpel processes
> >
> > ---
> > These correspond to the A.1 as modified by Ugo, B3, C2, D2
> > and E2 of the
> > "Some proposals" message
> > http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200310/msg00105.html
> >
> > If you think these aren't right, please propose amendments
> > prior to the
> > meeting so everyone gets a chance to see what's on offer.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> > ------------------------------------------
> > Peter Furniss
> > Chief Scientist, Choreology Ltd
> >
> > Cohesions 1.0 (TM)
> > Business transaction management software for application
> > coordination
> >
> > web: http://www.choreology.com
> > email:
> > phone: +44 870 739 0066 <-- new, from 4 August 2003
> > mobile: +44 7951 536168
> >
> > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> > the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
ave_workgroup.php.
