On Sep 25, 2007, at 11:02 AM, Ron Ten-Hove wrote:
> Sanjay,
>
> I believe Jeff was referring to the WS-BPEL TC, not the SCA BPEL
> WG. As a witness to that TC's debates, I can attest that his
> description is accurate.
that's correct.
-jeff
>
> --Ron
>
> Patil, Sanjay wrote:
>> Some clarification: AFAICT, The SCA BPEL TC did not have any lengthy
>> debate about picking 1.1 Vs 2.0 numbering for the OASIS revision.
>> Rather, the issue about version numbering was noted and quickly
>> tabled
>> with the assumption that the version numbering issue applies to
>> all the
>> Open CSA TCs and should be resolved elsewhere in a consistent manner.
>>
>> Personally, I prefer that we start with calling the OASIS
>> revisions of
>> the SCA specifications as version 1.1 and possibly bump up the
>> version
>> number to 2.0 before finalization in case we end up making backward
>> incompatible changes.
>>
>> -- Sanjay
>>
>>
>>> -----Original Message-----
>>> From: Jeff Mischkinsky [mailto:] Sent:
>>> Monday, Sep 24, 2007 20:37 PM
>>> To: Mike Edwards
>>> Cc: Anish Karmarkar; Ashok Malhotra; Bryan Aupperle; David Booz;
>>> Blohm, Henning; Martin Chapman; Michael Rowley; opencsa-
>>> ; Patil, Sanjay; Simon Holdsworth
>>> Subject: Re: [opencsa-ms] SCA TC Liaison issues
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sep 24, 2007, at 2:22 PM, Mike Edwards wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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".
>>>>
>>> ok, let the naming debate begin. :-)
>>>
>>> We (ORCL) discussed this issue internally and came to the
>>> tentative conclusion that we should probably call these 2.0,
>>> unless it does in fact turn out that ALL of the specs will be be
>>> backward compatible with the 1.0 versions. Obviously we have our
>>> doubts that will be the ultimate outcome.
>>> FWIW, it was noted that the BPEL TC went through a similar
>>> lengthy debate and finally settled on 2.0.
>>>
>>> That said, I suspect that it is probably premature to decide on
>>> a name. We should wait until we are much closer to "release" and
>>> have a better understanding of the diffs that are adopted. So
>>> how about we pick just pick a code name (its more fun to have a
>>> code name contest than to argue about 1.1 vs. 2.0 :-)
>>> The winner gets a free copy.
>>>
>>> cheers,
>>> jeff
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> --
>>> Jeff Mischkinsky
>>>
>>> Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards +1
>>> (650) 506-1975
>>> Consulting Member Technical Staff
>>> 500 Oracle Parkway, M/ S 4OP9
>>> Oracle
>>> Redwood Shores, CA 94065
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> Sun's Open ESB Community (http://open-esb.org)
>
--
Jeff Mischkinsky
Director, Oracle Fusion Middleware and Web Services Standards +1(650)
506-1975
Consulting Member Technical Staff 500 Oracle Parkway, M/
S 4OP9
Oracle Redwood Shores, CA 94065
