RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType

["Yunker, John" <yunker@amazon.com>]

There are several groups looking towards the next version of BPEL for expressions of service orchestrations to support standard processes, implementable over a community of partners.

This is in contrast to the use case for BPEL where creative uses are made of BPEL and WSDL to optimize specific interactions between specific partners.

It seems to me that discussions about this issue (and others) have identified aspects of BPEL that are NOT suited for use in "generally interoperable standard processes" (my quotes) such as may be created by UCC, OAG, UNCEFACT, AIAG, and other industry consortia.

These groups would be served by identification of a subset of BPEL that is well suited to these environments.  Currently there are several groups doing this by constraining the use of SOAP, MIME, etc within their own standards (such as RosettaNet).  This however leads to problems for businesses that participate in multiple of these standards (e.g. define "interoperable" SOAP).

If we could start labeling certain elements within BPEL as "not recommended for widespread interoperability", that would provide guidance on which features BPEL should work without explicit coordination between partners above and beyond exchanging the BPEL and its associated WSDL.

Not sure exactly how this would be set up in the spec, but it will be more important as bindings between BPEL and business standards are created.

(maybe should be a new issue...)

Thanks,
John

-----Original Message-----
From: Satish Thatte [mailto:satisht@microsoft.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:25 AM
To: Ugo Corda; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType


Ugo Wrote:

(By the way, in principle some risk exists even in the case of abstract messages associated with abstract operations. There is nothing in WSDL 1.1 that prevents actual bindings from leaving some message parts out when it comes to concrete message - so BPEL would have uninitialized parts in that case too).

Satish:

Well in that case I suggest BP 1.1 should forbid this behavior ;-)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ugo Corda [mailto:UCorda@SeeBeyond.com] 
Sent: Tuesday, November 04, 2003 9:59 AM
To: Satish Thatte; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] RE: Issue - 77 - Motion to require access to values not defined in portType

Satish, you say:

> the other abstract components you speak of are bound to the abstract
interfaces 
> through the even more complex area of binding.

Sorry, I disagree on the way you put this. These abstract components ARE part of the WSDL abstract interface.