Re: [sca-bpel] [ISSUE 18] - Comments on the Proposed Resolution for Issue18 (Section 2.1 of BPEL Spec)

Anish,

Sorry if my contribution was not helpful.

I have since sent another contribution
to the debate as a response to Martin's email.  In that, I present
a view

which allows us to have clear conformance
statements without requiring us to talk about the process of 

"generating" the componentType.
 

I think that this new approach is likely
to work out better - not only for BPEL but also for all the other language

TCs.  The componentType is simply
declared - once you have a given implementation artifact, you have

the componentType.  It does not
matter which piece of code calculates it, but any piece of code which uses

a given implementation artifact is required
to obey the rules for the componentType as a whole.

Yours,  Mike.

Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431  

Email:  

Anish Karmarkar <>

31/07/2008 00:43

To

Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB

cc

OASIS BPEL <>

Subject

Re: [sca-bpel]  [ISSUE 18] - Comments
on the Proposed Resolution for Issue 18 (Section 2.1 of BPEL Spec)

Mike,

I wish you had used revision 5 and not revision 9, per my email at 

http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200807/msg00033.html

This was a source of some confusion on the call last week.

Although, I don't think this is necessarily a problem wrt discussing 

issue 18, given that the text in question that you are commenting on is

mostly unchanged between the two versions. But for those who were 

confused about this last week, please be cognizant of this fact.

On your comment in section 2.1.2 can you please raise a separate issue

for this? Don't want to bundle this with 18.

My comments on your comments:

1) +1 to all the editorial fixups (s/sca:service/sca-bpel:service/ 

s/sca:reference/sca-bpel:reference/ s/specifies// insertion of 'an' and

'attribute).

2) WRT change from 'SCA runtime MUST generate ...' to '... MUST be 

generated':

This change removes the conformance target in the conformance statement.

IMHO, a conformance statement must specify a target. The target 

addresses the question 'who'. A conformance stmt must answer the 

question 'who', 'what' and the level of conformance.

For example: A WIDGET MUST be round in shape

who: WIDGET

what: round in shape

conformance level: mandatory

A WIDGET MAY be made of metal

who:WIDGET

what: made of metal

conformance level: optional

As a resolution of issue 15 (http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-15) we

agreed on various conformance targets. I would like to see appropriate

targets used in conformance statements. It makes testing/compliance much

easier IMHO.

I would go further and suggest the following rules for our conformance

statements:

1) Each conformance statement must contain *exactly one* target.

2) Each conformance statement must contain *exactly one* RFC 2119 keyword.

3) The target in a conformance statement must be capitalized. This makes

it clear what the target is. I'm suggesting this as a typographic 

convention. It won't change the meaning of the sentence, but in compound

sentences, it makes things clearer.

Here is a WS-I Basic Profile requirement example 

(http://www.ws-i.org/Profiles/BasicProfile-1_2(WGAD).html#R2724):

-----

R2724  If an INSTANCE receives an envelope that is inconsistent with
its 

WSDL description, it SHOULD generate a soap:Fault with a faultcode of 

"Client", unless a "MustUnderstand" or "VersionMismatch"
fault is generated.

-----

Basic profile has targets such as: instance, description, envelope. 

Since all those words are used in the above requirement, having a 

typographical convention about the target makes it readable.

-Anish

--

Mike Edwards wrote:

> 

> Folks,

> 

> I got the issue number wrong in my original post:

> 

> 

> 

> Yours,  Mike.

> 

> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431
 

> Email:  

> 

> 

> *Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB*

> 

> 25/07/2008 16:12

> 

>                  

> To

>                  "OASIS
BPEL" <>

> cc

>                  

> Subject

>                  [sca-bpel]
[ISSUE 30] - Comments on the Proposed Resolution for Issue 

> 30 (Section 2.1 of BPEL Spec)

> 

> 

>                  

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> Folks,

> 

> Here is a marked up version of the proposed resolution of Issue 30,

> based on CD-01-Rev9:

> 

> 

> 

> 

> I hope that things are self explanatory - I removed statements talking

> about "the SCA runtime MUST..."

> since it is better to write in a more general fashion that can be
taken 

> to apply to design time tools as well

> as a runtime.

> 

> 

> You will notice that I think there is a new issue lurking in section

> 2.1.1 - I'd appreciate comments in relation to that.

> 

> 

> Yours,  Mike.

> 

> Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.

> Co Chair OASIS SCA Assembly TC.

> IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.

> Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014    Mobile: +44-7802-467431
 

> Email:  

> 

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> /

> /

> 

> /Unless stated otherwise above:

> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number 

> 741598.

> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6 3AU/

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> [attachment "sca-bpel-1.1-spec-cd-01-rev9-MJEComments.doc"
deleted by 

> Mike Edwards/UK/IBM] 

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:

> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> /

> /

> 

> /Unless stated otherwise above:

> IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with
number 

> 741598.

> Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire
PO6 3AU/

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> 

> ------------------------------------------------------------------------

> 

> ---------------------------------------------------------------------

> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS
at:

> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

---------------------------------------------------------------------

To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that

generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:

https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

Unless stated otherwise above:

IBM United Kingdom Limited - Registered in England and Wales with number
741598. 

Registered office: PO Box 41, North Harbour, Portsmouth, Hampshire PO6
3AU