Bernd,
I think my request for BP-compliant UC artifacts is completely compatible with the needs you mention below.
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eckenfels. Bernd [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 12:07 PM
> To: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>
>
> Hello,
>
> Ugo: I would still be very much in favor of our Use
> Cases WSDL artifacts to be compliant with BP 1.0.
>
> Actually I think we need both: clean+smart WSDL files which
> are re-used often for demonstration and explanation use.
>
> But we also need real+heavy examples, so we can use them as a
> testing tool to verify our design in real world. For example
> we might recognize, that a assign component with hundreds of
> copy statements realy look mean :)
>
> I would liek to see e.g. a xCBL Purchase Order with a multi
> megabyte XML Schema Definition as well as Interface
> descriptions of some interfaces of the major ERP systems. It
> would be especially cool, if we have the same business
> document modeled for each represented EIS vendor here.
>
> Greetings
> Bernd
>
> Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:33 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>
>
> I guess I am not seeing why we need to take on this problem -
> RPC encoded or literal does not matter to the BPEL process.
> If someone is policing WSDL 1.1 usage let them enforce that.
> We can recommend BP 1.0 compliance for interop but if BPEL is
> used in environments where BP 1.0 is not feasible or needed,
> what does it mean for us to forbid the usage?
>
>
>
>
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:28 AM
> To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>
> Right, RPC literal would be fine, but RPC encoded would be in
> violation.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:23 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> So for instance the RPC encoded services bound to SOAP/HTTP
> would be in the "in scope but in violation" category?
>
>
>
>
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:18 AM
> To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri; Eckenfels. Bernd
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>
> Let me clarify point 4 (sorry, I mislabeled it as 3) in
> relation to point 1.
>
> I think we should distinguish services that are not compliant
> with BP 1.0 from those that are simply out of scope for BP 1.0.
>
> If I have a Web service that is not bound to SOAP/HTTP, then
> I would say it is out of scope for BP 1.0, so it's OK for
> BPEL to interact with it.
>
> My point 4 is about services that are within the scope of BP
> 1.0 and still do not comply with its requirements.
>
> Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 11:09 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> I doubt that we can mandate BPEL to be used with BP 1.0
> compliant services only especially given the answer to 1
> assuming it is correct, and given that there are many
> services today that are not compliant (e.g., RPC encoded ones).
>
>
>
>
> From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:55 AM
> To: Satish Thatte; Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>
> I see a few separate issues/questions connected to the
> relationship of BP 1.0 and BPEL.
>
> 1- Would BP 1.0 be restricting BPEL to the point that some of
> BPEL's functionality would not be available?
>
> I cannot think of any such restriction off the top of my head.
>
> 2- Would the fact that BP 1.0 only addresses the SOAP/HTTP
> binding imply that also BPEL should be limited to that type
> of binding?
>
> I don't think that anybody would imply that.
>
> 3- Should a BPEL process be offered as a Web service that is
> BP 1.0 compliant?
>
> My answer would be yes.
>
> 3- Would it be fair to limit BPEL use to interacting with BP
> 1.0 compliant Web services only?
>
> My personal answer would be yes. But I am a member of WS-I,
> and I understand other people might have different answers.
>
>
> Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Satish Thatte [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:39 AM
> To: Prasad Yendluri
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> For the benefit of the non-expert could post a salient
> example please? Specifically, a BPEL usage pattern that
> would not work if BP 1.0 is followed but would work if any
> WSDL 1.1 portType is allowed. In other words, is BP 1.0 a
> restriction on the WSDL artifacts we use or potentially on
> BPEL itself?
>
>
>
>
> From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:]
> Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 10:11 AM
> To: Satish Thatte
> Cc: BPEL OASIS
> Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
>
> The sections 5.5 and 5.6 in the basic profile
> (http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/Basic/2003-08/BasicProfile-1.0a.
> htm) are devoted to binding aspects but, several major
> sections including section 4, other sections of 5 address
> abstract aspects of WSDL, which is a pretty large portion.
> All those are applicable BPEL IMO.
>
> Prasad
>
> Satish Thatte wrote:
> Most of the BP 1.0 directives are binding related. BP also
> forbids outbound operations which BPEL does not use. Can
> someone identify a directive in BP 1.0 that actually affects BPEL?
>
> Satish
>
> 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.
