Re: Fw: [wsbpel-spec-edit] [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separateschemata for abstract and executable processes]

Hi, Diane and others, 

Sure ...  Hopefully, these suggested changes will remind TC members of
directions of Issue 24 resolution ... 

I shall forward this suggested changes to the full TC list by the end
of today, if I don't hear any opposition from editing subgroup. 

Thanks. 

Regards,

Alex Yiu

Diane Jordan wrote:

  Hi,
  

  Alex, this sounds like good progress
- thanks to all who participated.  
  

  As I recall the resolution to issue
24 was approved by the TC, but there were several folks interested in
seeing
the details of the resolution as well - when you feel this is complete
enough, please forward to the full TC for review.  I don't think we
should have to revote it, but should give everyone a chance to see it
and
bring up any questions or comments.  
  

  Thanks. 

Regards, Diane

IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies



(919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123

  
  

  ----- Forwarded by
Diane
Jordan/Raleigh/IBM on 05/10/2004 02:04 PM -----
  

  
    
      

        Alex Yiu
<>
        
        
05/07/2004 03:34 PM
        

        
        
        
          
            

              
              
To

              
              Alex
Yiu <>
              
            

            

              
              
cc

              
              
              
            

            

              
              
Subject

              
              Re:
[wsbpel-spec-edit] [Fwd:
Re: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and executable
processes]
            

          
        
        

        
          
            

              
              

              
              

              
            

          
        
        

        
      

    
  
  

  

  

  

Hi, all editor subgroup members,

  

We had a conf call with Phil (from Unisys), John and Satish, Nick and
me
on some general abstract BPEL discussion (Thursday - May 06). 

  

I got an action item to make the changes to schema and spec to reflect
Issue 24 resolution, i.e., separate the schemas under two namespaces. 

Here are my suggested changes of phrase-1: 

  

(1) create two namespace URI: 

  "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/"
for executable BPEL

  "http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/abstract"
for abstract BPEL

  

(2) remove abstractProcess="yes|no"attribute in the process definition

Using the namespace and/or prefixes to denote whether this is an
abstract
or executable process. E.g.: 

<bpws:process xmlns:bpws="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/">

<bpwsa:process xmlns:bpwsa="http://schemas.xmlsoap.org/ws/2004/03/business-process/abstract">

  

(3) Going through the spec apply the above changes in (2). E.g. (i)
adding
namespace URIs to Section 2.  (ii) remove abstractProcess attribute
reference in Section 6.2, Section 16 and other examples. 

  

(4) create a XSD file "wsbpel_abstract.xsd", which is just a
temporary place holder to point to the new namespace as the
targetNamespace
and which defines an element which extends from the executable tProcess
type. Please note that this schema extension extension is a just
temporarily
arrangement. We shall work on details of separating the schemas in
phrase-2
after we vote on Issue 107, 99 and etc. 

  

  

What do you guys think?

  

  

Thanks!

  

  

  

Regards,

Alex Yiu

  

  

Alex Yiu wrote:
  

  

Hi, 

  

Forwarding to the editing group email list to move the actual
discussion
there ...

Thanks!

  

  

Regards,

Alex Yiu

  

  

-------- Original Message -------- 
  
    
      

        
        
Subject: 

        
        Re: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate
schemata for
abstract and executable processes
        
      

      

        
        
Date: 

        
        Wed, 05 May 2004 19:59:56 -0700
        
      

      

        
        
From: 

        
        Alex Yiu <>
        
      

      

        
        
To: 

        
        
        
      

      

        
        
CC: 

        
        Alex Yiu <>
        
      

      

        
        
References: 

        
        <>
      

    
  
  

  

  
  

  Hi all,

  

(Cross posting from Issue 99)

  

Judging from the resolution of Issue 24,

(http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200401/msg00013.html)

we want to have two namespaces.

  

Issue 24 execution has been in the "kitchen" sink for a while.
I would 

suggest the editing subgroup (including myself) to make a small 

incremental change first to the spec in the coming few weeks to reflect
  

the desire of having two namespaces.

  

After voting on issue 99, 107 and etc, we will work the remaining 

details for Issue 24, i.e. separating those 2 schemas while keeping
some
  

linkage in using XML Schema construct.

  

  

Thanks!

  

  

  

Regards,

Alex Yiu