Please see my answers below.
Ugo
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Furniss, Peter [mailto:]
> Sent: Thursday, October 02, 2003 4:35 AM
> To: Furniss, Peter; BPEL OASIS
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue - 72 - (really, was RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and
> WS-I BP 1.0)
>
>
> n my fight with mailer, I lost the change to the subject !
>
> treat as issue 72 !
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Furniss, Peter
> > Sent: 02 October 2003 10:57
> > To: BPEL OASIS
> > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> >
> >
> > (had some arguments with my mailer getting this out -
> > apologies if it eventually turns up twice)
> >
> >
> > From issues list editor: Please follow up this thread with an
> > Issue - 72
> > - subject, not the Issue 47 one : I'm getting bored with
> > hand-modifying the html to move the links.
> >
> > On the substance (Following are personal views)
> >
> > If the question is,
> >
> > "BPEL should work only with BP-compliant Web services."
> >
> > then I think answer is NO. Are we really saying that
> > end-users would not be able to use BPEL to handle legacy
> > interactions, perhaps using proprietary communications (and
> > thus perhaps proprietary wsdl bindings to express them in
> > bpel-accessible terms). And what of local interactions that
> > are represented to executable BPEL as web services (i.e. as
> > WSDL with a funny binding). Ok, those are binding questions,
> > but if there is an impact on the BPEL-visible aspects, would
[UC] As I already mentioned before, non SOAP/HTTP bindings are out of scope for BP 1.0. Please let them be out of our scope of discussion too.
> > we want to disallow it. It might be worth considering what,
> > if anything, we seek to
> > disallow:
> >
> > a) BPEL processes that can work with non-BP web services.
> >
> > b) BPEL engines that support such processes
> >
> > c) BPEL language constructs that could not be used with
> > BP-compliant web services (i.e. that require
> > beyond-*basic*-profile facilities to be used in a real case)
> >
[UC] I would be very interested in hearing concrete examples of that.
> > d) BPEL use-cases that require byeond-basic-profile
> > facilities in their worked-out example entries
> >
> > e) BPEL use-casas that appear to require beyond-basic-profile
> > facilities, but which haven't been worked out in detail yet
> >
[UC} Same observation. Let's find concrete examples of that, and then we can discuss. I suspect we won't find any.
> > the e) : d) distinction is that a business-derived use-case
> > might require BP 1.0-exceeding features (exotic MEPs, say).
[UC} Again, I don't see our spec covering the use of any exotic MEPs.
> > Is this disallowed as a use-case candidate on that ground. Is
> > it allowed in the use-case catalogue, but marked as "deferred
> > for future work" when it's clear the wsdl can't be expressed
> > in bp 1.0-compliant form ? Is it marked as deferred only if
> > the agreed features of BPEL CD-1 [1] are insufficient to
> > implement the use-case ?
> >
> > Actually, I think "interoperability" as a BPEL goal needs
> > very careful thought. This is fundamentally a language for
> > manipulating interoperable services, not an interoperable
> > protocol. The BPEL abstract to *define* interoperable
> > business protocols is enhanced by maximal capability, not
[UC} Are you saying that it is ok if company A builds BPEL process PA, and company B builds BPEL process PB, and PA and PB cannot interact because companies A and B interpreted the WSDL and SOAP specs in a non-interoperable way?
> > profiling. I suppose I ought to join in the implementation
> > groups discussions.
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: Ugo Corda [mailto:]
> > > Sent: 02 October 2003 04:39
> > > To: Francisco Curbera
> > > Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; Prasad Yendluri; Satish Thatte; BPEL OASIS
> > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> > >
> > >
> > > Paco,
> > >
> > > This thread originated from today's meeting discussions. At
> > the time
> > > the UC presentation was made, I brought up the idea of
> having only
> > > BP-compliant WSDL in any examples we provide.
> > >
> > > Later, during the discussion of Issue 47, the question was
> > asked about
> > > what type of WSDL, 1.1 or 1.2, we should be looking at. The
> > > discussion naturally moved to what kind of WSDL 1.1 we
> are talking
> > > about, and the idea was bounced around about stating that
> > BPEL should
> > > work only with BP-compliant Web services. That is the
> > origin of this
> > > thread.
> > >
> > > I agree with you that the UC examples should be our major
> > objective as
> > > far as BP compliance is concerned. Still there are other
> > more subtle
> > > areas where consistency with BP relates directly to
> > decisions we make
> > > regarding BPEL itself.
> > >
> > > For instance, we have been saying that interoperability is an
> > > important aspect of BPEL (it was just being discussed
> > during the first
> > > meeting of the implementation subgroup), but that we should
> > not worry
> > > too much about it and just say that BPEL deals with Web
> > services and
> > > that Web services by definition are supposed to be
> > interoperable. But
> > > how can we say that when we know too well of all the
> > interoperability
> > > problems that have surfaced when only dealing with WSDL 1.1
> > (and SOAP
> > > 1.1)? So we need to further qualify our reliance on WSDL 1.1
> > > with the BP 1.0 constraints in order to guarantee (or at
> > > least enhance) BPEL interoperability.
> > >
> > > Another example of BP relevance to BPEL is the resolution
> > of Issue 46.
> > > It would certainly be a bad idea if we said that the
> > namespace of the
> > > part is something other than a null namespace (which WSDL 1.1 by
> > > itself would allow), when BP 1.0 specifies that a null namespace
> > > should be associated with the corresponding part accessor
> > element (see
> > > R2735 of BP 1.0).
> > >
> > > Ugo
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:]
> > > > Sent: Wednesday, October 01, 2003 6:49 PM
> > > > To: Ugo Corda
> > > > Cc: Eckenfels. Bernd; Prasad Yendluri; Satish Thatte; BPEL OASIS
> > > > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am a little confused by this discussion.
> > > >
> > > > The only thing we should be concerned about is whether BPEL
> > > *prevents*
> > > > anyone from creating or using BP compliant services.
> > > Otherwise, the BP
> > > > only affects the WSDL and XSD definitions on which BPEL
> relies. We
> > > > should then respect the natural layering and leave BP
> > compliance to
> > > > WSDL and XSD authors, and out of BPEL.
> > > >
> > > > OTOH, since the BP is a restriction on the usage of WSDL 1.1 and
> > > > XSD, and BPEL supports all applicable WSDL 1.1 (except
> > for outbound
> > > > ops and here it
> > > > is consistent with the BP,) I don't believe BPEL prevents
> > > following BP
> > > > directives in any way. Maybe someone can provide an example.
> > > >
> > > > A different thing is whether our usage case examples
> > should contain
> > > > WSDL and XSD definitions that are WS-I compliant. This
> is a good
> > > > idea.
> > > >
> > > > Paco
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > > "Ugo Corda"
> > > >
> >
> > > > <UCorda@SeeBeyond To:
> > > > "Satish Thatte" <>, "Prasad Yendluri"
> > > >
> > > > .com>
> > > > <>, "Eckenfels. Bernd"
> > > > <>
> > > > cc:
> > > > "BPEL OASIS" <>
> > > >
> > > > 10/01/2003 02:28 Subject: RE:
> > > > [wsbpel] Issue 47 and WS-I BP 1.0
> > >
> > > > PM
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > 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.h
> > tm) 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.
>
>
> 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.
