Re: [wsbpel] Sub-functions: some thoughts

Ugo,

    I take it you place a heavy value of the existing wording of the
specification. I find this curious; other than saving the TC some time,
what other benefits are there to preserving the submitted spec
substantially "as is"? More broadly, what the role of this TC? Chiefly
editorial?

-Ron

Ugo Corda wrote:

  
  
  
  
Ron,

  
 

  
> I was referring to Ugo's
request that we seek to prove that the WS approach to modelling
subprocesses  

  
> couldn't handle all use cases.
I regard this approach as biased, since it puts an unreasonable burden  

  
> of proof on one side of the
discussion, but not the other. 

  
 

  
Sorry, this has nothing to do with being
biased. The burden of proof is asymmetric because the problem with
start with is asymmetric. In other
words, we are not starting with two possible approaches both of which
would have to be developed from scratch. We are starting with one
approach being already available (except for possibly minor
modifications), and a second one that would require to be developed. 

  
 

  
If you are saying that the existing
approach is not sufficient, and are asking us to do additional work, I
think it's very legitimate to request use cases that show how that is
so and why we should go through the extra work. (You are certainly free
not to give such use cases, but I am equally free not to vote in favor
of your proposal if I don't find it convincing).

  
 

  
Ugo