OASIS SCA-BPEL TC telcon

Agenda -
1. Roll Call
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bpel/members/roster.php
2. Appointment of scribe
Scribe list attached below
3. Agenda bashing
4. Approval of Sep 25, 2008 minutes
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200810/msg00002.html
5. Approval of Oct 9, 2008 minutes
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200810/msg00013.html
6. Action items review
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/sca-bpel/members/action_items.php
a) AI #0021
Sanjay to follow up with Mary to post the CD docs to OASIS repository
b) AI #0047
Anish to communicate to the Assembly TC to consider including examples of using interface.partnerLinkType in the Assembly specification.
c) AI #0048
Anish to propose a new issue for mapping interface.wsdl to interface.partnerLinkType.
7. LOA requests
8. New Issues
a) http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200810/msg00014.html
9. Issue Discussion
a) Issue 18 - http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-18
TITLE- Need to rewrite the SCA-BPEL specifications with RFC-2119
keywords/statements
Latest proposal: http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-bpel/200810/msg00009.html
b) Issue 12 - http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/BPEL-12
TITLE Long-Running Request-Response Operations
10. AOB

Agenda approved

Sep 25, 2008 minutes approved

Oct 9, 2008 minutes approved

a) AI 0021 - Sanjay

Sanjay to follow up with Mary again - may just result in a resubmission of the files

b) AI 0047 - Anish

Done

c) AI 0048 - Anish

Done

Ashok will go on LOA starting today

Kanderao will also go on LOA starting next week

Anish explains the new issue (see link above)

Motion to open the issue (m: Mike E., s: Dieter) - accepted without objection

Issue 18 - proposal provided my Mike R.

Mike R. explains his proposal

(see word doc attached to mail linked above, section 2.1.1)

The discussion brought up a new issue about additional constraints needed for enforcing the integrity between sca-bpel:service and sca-bpel:reference attributes on one hand and sca-bpel:multiRefFrom or bpel:initializePartnerRole attributes on the other hand

Mike E. summarizes the discussion at the SCA-Assembly TC about issue http://www.osoa.org/jira/browse/ASSEMBLY-36

SCA-Assembly TC discussion of issue Assembly-36:
------------------------------------------------
Issue 36: Compatibility of Component Type side files
<Mike Edwards>
http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/sca-assembly/200809/msg00057.html
<Dave Booz>
for the record, here's what the assembly spec says now (cd01 rev1) on this:
<Dave Booz>
172 The component type is calculated in two steps where the second step adds to the information
173 found in the first step. Step one is introspecting the implementation (if possible), including the
174 inspection of implementation annotations (if available). Step two covers the cases where
175 introspection of the implementation is not possible or where it does not provide complete
176 information and it involves looking for an SCA component type file. Component type
177 information found in the component type file must be compatible with the equivalent information
178 found from inspection of the implementation. The component type file can specify partial179 information, with the remainder being derived from the implementation.
<Simon Nash>
are we taking people from the queue or should people just jump in when they want to say something?
<Dave Booz>
Mike E is trying to get you in
<anish>
Each C&I specifies (1) if a CT side file(s) is allowed (2) if introspection is allowed, (3) name and location of side files(s) (4) compatibility between introspected CT and side file(s), (5) how the effective CT of an implementation is derived. SCA Assembly only cares about the effective CT.
<anish>
Each implementation has an (effective) CT, specified by sca:ComponentType, how that is arrived at depends on the implementation type.
Resolution - m:Vorthmann s:Aupperle accept Anish's text above as a direction for the resolution to Assembly-36
<Mike Edwards>
13:30 - 13:45 Issue 82: Relax schema to allow anywhere
Action - Karmaker to develop concrete text consistent with the directional resolution to Assembly-36
----------------------------------------------------------

(back to SCA-BPEL-18 - usage of term "introspected component type")

if there is no side file then the effective component type is the introspected component type

this proposal is dependent on the definition of "introspected component type"

Motion to adopt the proposed text from Mike R. as amended by Anish as the model for the complete spec (m: Danny, s: Mike R.)

Motion includes accepting the proposal as actual spec text for section 2.1.1

SCA-BPEL should use "component type" instead of "introspected component type"

(no amendment here - motion stays as is)

Motion accepted without objection

Editors should now take this direction for the rest of the sepc

New AI for Mike R. - talk to editors

Mike E. mentions the SCA-Assembly approach of labeling conformance points in the spec

Topic 10: AOB

no AOB

meeting adjourned