Re: [wsbpel-reqts] [bpel-rqmts[ Jordan 8/29/2003: Issues Categoriesfor Discussion Boundaries

Diane Jordan wrote:

>
> Monica,
> I didn't get a chance to respond on Friday - thanks for your work on 
> this.   I think we're in agreement that functional categorization is 
> the way to go.  As we discussed a couple weeks ago, any attempt to set 
> priorities is likely to be too subjective and lead to unproductive 
> controversy.  The priorities will become evident by virtue of the 
> amount of effort the TC is willing to expend on any given issue.
>
> I expect we (John and I with the help of the issues coordination 
> subgroup) will use the input on categories for organizing agendas.   
> You use the term "bound"  below which can imply setting constraints on 
> bringing up issues that are viewed as related in a way not reflected 
> in your document.   I'm concerned that if we try to impose that much 
> rigor around categories it will lead the TC down a path of working to 
> refine the categorization rather than working on resolving the issues. 
>   Perhaps I'm being too particular about the language here, but I 
> would prefer to use a term like "orient" or "organize" and avoid 
> presenting the categorization as normative.  

mm1: No my context with 'bound' was to help focus our discussions rather 
than random issue discussion.

>
> I've put categorization on the agenda for tomorrow - you may want to 
> post the document to the full group.  
>
> Regards, Diane
> IBM  Dynamic e-business Technologies
> 
> (919)254-7221 or 8-444-7221, Mobile: 919-624-5123
>
>
>
>
> 	*Monica Martin <>*
>
> 08/29/2003 01:54 PM
>
> 	       
>         To:        bpel rqmts <>, 
> Diane Jordan/Raleigh/IBM@IBMUS
>         cc:        
>         Subject:        [wsbpel-reqts] [bpel-rqmts[ Jordan 8/29/2003: 
> Issues Categories for Discussion Boundaries
>
>
>
>
> Diane,
> In Wednesday's call we discussed trying to put the issues in similar
> functional buckets for discussion, not particularly categorization by
> priority. I think several of the priorities by function are apparent,
> but (as we discussed) this is for the TC to decide.
>
> Here is a broad categorization to discuss issues.  They fall pretty
> nicely except we may need to decompose correlation further, and also
> discuss it understanding clear definitions for conversation, transaction
> and business transaction.  I anticipate these will be discussed and the
> recognition made during the face-to-face in September.
>
> I would like to propose these be considered by the TC to bound
> discussions. Whether or not the proposals or the volunteers champions
> are combined, that's will be up to this SC and the TC itself.
>
> I am formally asking we bring this up on Wednesday and consider
> discussing the issues in this fashion in the F2F.
>
> Thank you.
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster 
> of the OASIS TC), go to 
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel-reqts/members/leave_workgroup.php. 
>
>  
>