Prasad sent you his comments. I haven’t
heard from Paco. Go ahead and put in your changes based on Prasad’s
comments. If Paco has issues he can have the pen later to fix things up :-)
From: Liu, Kevin [mailto:kevin.liu@sap.com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 27, 2004 5:24 PM
To: Satish
Thatte; Alex Yiu; Prasad Yendluri
Cc: bpel spec; Francisco Curbera
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit]
Summary of today's editors' call
Sorry for the late reply.
If somebody can verify my proposed changes
for WS-I BP conformance and the group approve the changes, I can certainly take
the pen to incorporate the changes into the draft.
BTW, will we have call tomorrow?
Best
Regards,
Kevin
-----Original
Message-----
From: Satish
Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, Jul 21, 2004
03:06 PM
To: Alex Yiu; Prasad Yendluri
Cc: bpel spec; Francisco Curbera
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit]
Summary of today's editors' call
Thanks Alex.
Kevin,
Are you ready to take the pen?
Haven't heard from you.
Paco, have you had a chance to scan
Kevin's BP-I fixes?
Satish
From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 21, 2004 2:31
PM
To: Prasad Yendluri
Cc: Satish
Thatte; bpel spec
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit]
Summary of today's editors' call
Hi, all,
I have checked in changes in both XSD and word file for Issue 34 changes.
As we discussed in the conf call this morning, it contains only the original
Issue 34 semantics (i.e. the attribute is required)
I am handing the pen off now.
Thanks!
Regards,
Alex YIu
Prasad Yendluri wrote:
Hi All,
I just checked in the updates for issues 43 and 44. I am handing Pen off.
Alex, I guess you get the pen.
Thanks, Prasad
-------- Original Message --------
Issues 37, 75, 94 and 114 were indeed incorporated by Alex on June 30.
They should be removed from the list of "not yet incorporated" issues.
Issue 126 is not officially resolved. It should also be removed from that list.
Prasad will incorporate issues 43 and 44. He has the pen.
Alex will then incorporate 34. Prasad will pass him the pen, hopefully by the weekend. T
here may be a minor clarification needed on whether the reference-schema attribute is required.
We need to put this on the TC call agenda for next week. But Alex will go ahead and make the
minor change needed later if the TC decides t!
o make this attribute optional
(it is currently required).
Prasad will also scan the BP-I inconsistencies reported by Kevin relative to the resolution
of issue 128. Paco, if you can also take a look that would be great.
Assuming everyone agrees with Kevin's list of BP-I fixes, Kevin should incorporate them
as the resolution for 128. Kevin, can you take the pen after Alex?
Yaron has agreed to incorporate 84 but we will defer that until he feels ready.
Yaron mentioned 9 as a blocking problem -- I just looked at it and I do not believe it is a blocking issue. We have mandated static analysis at various places in the spec in order to apply *syntactic* correctness rules that cannot be conveniently expressed in schema. I see 84 as relating to those cases. Yaron, if you disagree we need to discuss.
!
I will follow up on resolving the remaining aspects of Issue 10, and will incorporate 1 and 10
after Kevin is done.
Cheers,
Satish
________________________________________
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:20 AM
To: Prasad Yendluri
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: RE: [wsbpel-spec-edit] call today 9:30 PDT
This is the list as Peter sees it. Let us verify what is already done.
Thanks for offering to take three issues. I am wondering if 10 should be deferred
until we have thought through the "reentrancy" aspects.
Let us discuss in a few minutes.
________________________________________
From: Prasad Yendluri [mailto:pyendluri@webmethods.com]
Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 9:10 AM
To: Satish Thatte
Cc: bpel spec
Subject: Re: [wsbpel-spec-edit] call today 9:30 PDT
To save some time on the call, I thought I would volunteer to take some of the issues.
Looking through the issues, I believe Alex already took care of 37, 75, 94 and 114.
Also I guess we already applied 105 sometime back (though we just closed the issue at SFO f2f).
That leaves 1, 10, 34, 43, 44, 84, 126 and 128.
Working top down and leaving issues that are better handled by others, I can do 10,43 and 44.
Thanks, Prasad
------- Original Message --------
Subject: [wsbpel-spec-edit] call today 9:30 PDT
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2004 08:26:32 -0700
From: Satish Thatte <satisht@microsoft.com>
To: bpel spec <wsbpel-spec-edit@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sorry about being tardy with this. I have been swamped - vacations have
evil consequences. We have a lot of issues to incorporate. Once we
finish with this we are charged with producing a clean draft. The focus
today should be on making a schedule for the resolved issues (list
below). I realize that there is unfinished technical resolution
business related to Issue 10.
Satish
Issue 1
Permeability of scopes
Issue 10
Serialization of compensation
Issue 34
Dependency on Proprietary Specifications
Issue 37
Initiating Correlation Set More Than Once
Issue 43
Setting up Periodic Alarms
Issue 44
portType is duplicated on Invoke activity and partnerLinkType
Issue 75
Locally Scoped partnerLink declarations
Issue 84
Require Static Analysis Description & List
Issue 94
Allow both "compensate" and other activities in compensation or fault
handler
Issue 105
XML namespaces used in spec and examples need to be defined!
Issue 114
Multiple Correlation Sets
Issue 126
Event Handlers with local partnerLinks & Correlation Sets
Issue 128
WS-I BP Incompatible WSDL Import