Anish,
Thanks for bringing these items forward.
I have a suggestion of how to deal with
these items and similar items in the short run. I suspect
that what I suggest will form part of
the long run process anyway.
These items should be placed onto the
Agenda of upcoming meetings of each TC by the chair(s)
of those TCs, with the aim of getting
each TC to make a decision. In order to do this, each item must
be couched in terms of a definitive
recommendation that can be adopted.
Issue 2 below is in the right form.
Issue 1 below is more of a discussion.
Here is a proposal:
-------
Issue 1: What should be the version
of the SCA specs?
To avoid confusion, all the initial
specifications produced by the SCA TCs belonging to the Open CSA MS
will be given the label "Version
1.1".
This will enable all the specifications
to be clearly related to each other and also to be distinguished from
the Version 1.0 SCA specifications published
by the Open SOA collaboration in March 2007.
-------
Now all that is required is to get each
TC to adopt the resolution for each of these issues.
The real liaison will begin if and when
TCs disagree about the resolution ;-)
Yours, Mike.
Strategist - Emerging Technologies, SCA & SDO.
IBM Hursley Park, Mail Point 146, Winchester, SO21 2JN, Great Britain.
Phone & FAX: +44-1962-818014 Mobile: +44-7802-467431
Email:
Anish Karmarkar <>
24/09/2007 18:30
To
cc
"Patil, Sanjay" <>,
Mike Edwards/UK/IBM@IBMGB, Martin Chapman <>,
Ashok Malhotra <>, David Booz <>,
Michael Rowley <>, "Blohm, Henning" <>,
Bryan Aupperle <>, Simon Holdsworth/UK/IBM@IBMGB
Subject
[opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues
Open CSA SC,
The SCA BPEL TC has two issues, which were discussed during the recently
concluded F2F, that require coordination across all SCA TCs. Since there
is no official liaison mechanism set up, on behalf of SCA BPEL TC I'm
bringing these issues to the attention of the Open CSA SC. I would like
to request the SC to coordinate this across all the SCA TCs.
Issue 1: What should be the version of the SCA specs?
Should the version of the SCA specs be 2.0 or 1.x? Or something else?
It is certainly possible to have the assembly specification be version
2.0 and BPEL C&I specification version that depends on assembly 2.0
be
1.5, for example. But such version numbers will be very confusing. Given
that the TCs are affiliated with the Open CSA MS, a better approach
would be to have the same version number for all the initial output
specifications of the various SCA TC. If not, at the very least, have
the number before the "." be the same. This will require coordination
and agreement across all the TCs.
Issue 2: Use of RFC 2119 keywords in the spec
In aligning the spec with the OASIS template and accepting the OASIS TAB
recommendations, the SCA BPEL TC decided to use the RFC 2119 keywords
along with the following restriction:
a) All RFC 2119 keywords will be of the uppercase form (for example, RFC
2119 keywords MUST be capitalized)
b) use of lowercase 2119 keywords will not be used in the spec. When the
use of 2119 keyword is needed, without having the implications wrt
conformance, a suitable synonym will be found.
c) RFC 2119 defines keywords that are synonyms of each other. For
example 'SHALL' and 'MUST' mean the same thing. The TC decided to not
use multiple forms to mean the same. Therefore the TC decided to use
'MUST' instead of 'SHALL' and 'MUST NOT' instead of 'SHALL NOT' through
out the spec.
Please note that the use of RFC 2119 keywords affect conformance.
Consistency across the SCA spec with respect to conformance and the use
of normative conformance lanaguage is highly desirable.
Please let me know if you have any questions.
Thanks and regards.
-Anish Karmarkar
SCA BPEL TC co-chair on behalf of SCA BPEL TC
--
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
