Yaron, you say:
> I think that the BP is a minefield
That is a strange statement coming from the representative of a company that is one of the Founding Members of WS-I, has been one of the most active contributors of BP 1.0, and is one of the editors of the document itself.
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Yaron Goland [mailto:]
> Sent: Monday, October 27, 2003 11:29 AM
> To: Ugo Corda; 'Furniss, Peter';
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
>
>
> I think that the BP is a minefield and at every step we think
> we have stepped on a mine but, depending on how you
> understand the BP spec, that mine may be a stone.
>
> Taking a dependency on a spec which leads to such consistent
> confusion and ambiguities does not fill me with much confidence.
>
> As the proposal now standards I personally intend to vote
> against it. I believe the ramifications of the proposal are
> ambiguous. If someone can come up with language that clearly
> states the sorts of things that Peter has been explaining in
> his mails then I would be willing to vote in favor but I
> haven't seen a solid proposal yet.
>
> Just my two euros,
>
> Yaron
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
> > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:28 AM
> > To: Furniss, Peter; ;
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
> >
> >
> > Peter, Yaron,
> >
> > Regarding the XML 1.0 vs. XML 2.0 issue, sec. 2 of BP 1.0
> > clearly states:
> >
> > "The scope of the Profile delineates the technologies that it
> > addresses; in other words, the Profile only
> > attempts to improve interoperability within its own scope.
> > Initially, the Profile's scope is bounded by the
> > specifications referenced by it; for a complete list of the
> > Profile's referenced specifications, see Appendix I".
> >
> > and the list in Appendix I specifies XML 1.0 and WSDL 1.1.
> > Since the current version of BPEL uses those specs, it falls
> > within the scope of BP 1.0.
> >
> > It certainly makes sense that when a new version of XML comes
> > out BPEL will want to take advantage of it. Will BPEL try to
> > use XML 2.0 and still use WSDL 1.1? If that's the case, then
> > BPEL would fall out of scope for BP 1.0. If, as it is more
> > likely to happen, a future version of BPEL decided to use XML
> > 2.0 and WSDL 2.0, then BPEL will likely fall under the scope
> > of a new BP version, let's say BP 2.0, which defines XML 2.0
> > and WSDL 2.0 under its scope.
> >
> > Ugo
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:]
> > > Sent: Friday, October 24, 2003 10:07 AM
> > > To: ;
> > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote
> > >
> > >
> > > Yaron,
> > >
> > > I believe the (rough) consensus of the group is as your last
> > > paragraph -
> > > at least BP 1.0, not only BP 1.0 - so it's a matter of
> getting clear
> > > wording not different intent. In the light of the
> > discussion when Ugo
> > > proposed the wording of A, I don't think the sort of
> restriction in
> > > R2011 was intended (selecting from a possible choice), but
> > > only in cases
> > > where BP clarified/corrected WSDL, when BPEL should follow the BP
> > > interpretation. Actually, "interpret .. contradictory" is
> even more
> > > flexible than "follow BP ", I think.
> > >
> > > However, on looking through BP 1.0 in order to find an
> > example, there
> > > don't seem to be many, if any, cases of real clarification.
> > > As I see it,
> > > A (whatever it ends up saying) is a policy decision
> > > applicable to future
> > > detailed issues and editing. (and we might, if we really
> thought it
> > > right, contradict the policy in a particular case, though
> > > no-one can yet
> > > see a case where we could even think of it)
> > >
> > > On re-reading BP, a crucial thing to get clear in one's
> mind is the
> > > scope (or, perhaps one could say "target") of the profile.
> > The comment
> > > that appears after R2401 (itself well below the BPEL horizon) is
> > > illuminating - the presence of non-BP bindings in a wsdl
> description
> > > does not make the description non-compliant (at least, I
> > assume that's
> > > what is meant - it certainly makes sense). I couldn't find clearly
> > > stated exactly how that scoping is to be considered, though
> > from Ugo's
> > > comments early in this thread, it seems to be something like
> > > "if you do
> > > this kind of thing, then you are compliant if and only if
> you do it
> > > exactly this way; but if you aren't doing this kind of thing, this
> > > profile has nothing to say". That begs the question on the
> > > multi-capable
> > > entity and the negative requirements in BP - to take your
> > > example, if a
> > > future implementation can handle XML 1.0 and XML 2.0, can it
> > > claim to be
> > > fully BP-compliant because it can use use 1.0 but is out of
> > scope when
> > > using 2.0.
> > >
> > >
> > > Can you suggest text to clarify A ?
> > >
> > > Peter
> > >
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Yaron Goland [mailto:]
> > > > Sent: 24 October 2003 02:01
> > > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> >
> > 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.
>
>
