You've now got a sentence in there that I think adds nothing, and is confusing. I would remove the sentence in brackets, and reword the 2nd to last sentence.

From

-------------------------------- A WS-BPEL processor MAY make XPath extension functions of other namespaces available. [They must be understood by a WS-BPEL processor.] If the WS-BPEL Processor does not support one or more of these XPath extension namespaces then the process definition MUST be rejected. This requirement MUST be statically enforced.

--------------------------------

To

-------------------------------- A WS-BPEL processor MAY make XPath extension functions of other namespaces available. If a process definition contains XPath functions of other namespaces, a WS-BPEL Processor that does not support one or more of these XPath extension functions MUST reject the process. This requirement MUST be statically enforced.

--------------------------------

Alex Yiu wrote:

Hi Simon,

I understand your intent.

However, the <import> mechanism in the spec has only covered importing WSDL and XSD. Of course, it may be extended to importing XPath functions.

But, I would hesitate to do so. Because:

* What exactly does the location of XPath function definition mean in <import>? [I have a feeling that we are dancing around the elephant again.] * And, for XPath function there should be no option for mustUnderstand (which needs to be always true).

While I feel comfortable with the second part of your word smithing: "If a WS-BPEL Processor does not support one or more of these XPath extension namespaces then the process definition MUST be rejected. This requirement MUST be statically enforced."

So, I may I would take your second half of you suggestion for part (b).

-------------------------------- A WS-BPEL processor MAY make XPath extension functions of other namespaces available. They must be understood by a WS-BPEL processor. If the WS-BPEL Processor does not support one or more of these XPath extension namespaces then the process definition MUST be rejected. This requirement MUST be statically enforced. --------------------------------

I guess the new text is simplier and preceise enough?

Thanks!

Regards, Alex Yiu

Simon D Moser wrote:

Hi all,

the intention of the sentence "The declaration [editor todo: add xref here] does NOT cover those XPath extension functions and XPath functions of other namespace must be always understood by WS-BPEL processor" is totally unclear. Therefore, we propose to amend [b] in the following way:

[from]

WS-BPEL processor MAY make XPath extension function of other namespace available. The declaration [editor todo: add xref here] does NOT cover those XPath extension functions and XPath functions of other namespace must be always understood by WS-BPEL processor. If unrecognized XPath function is used and if it is detected by static analysis, the process defintion MUST be rejected.

[to]

A WS-BPEL processor MAY make XPath extension functions of other namespaces available. If XPath extensions functions of other namespaces are used, then these namespaces MUST be declared as WS-BPEL extension namespaces with the mustUnderstand attribute set to "yes" (see Section 14. Extension Declarations). If a WS-BPEL Processor does not support one or more of these XPath extension namespaces then the process definition MUST be rejected. This requirement MUST be statically enforced.

Cheers /Simon -------------------------------------------------- Simon Daniel Moser, M.Eng. Business Process Solutions Development 1 IBM Boeblingen Laboratory Schoenaicherstr. 220, 01/086 D - 71032 Boeblingen Tel.: +49 - 7031 - 164304 IP Telephone Number (ITN): 39204304 email: [1]smo...@de.ibm.com

Rule of thumb #3459835478: when you find yourself typing/copying the same thing more than twice in a row, redesign or re-implement. No excuse possible.

Danny van der Rijn [2]<dan...@tibco.com To > Alex Yiu [3]<alex...@oracle.com> cc 06/21/2006 10:28 [4]wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org, Thomas PM Schulze/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, Dieter Koenig1/Germany/IBM@IBMDE, Diane Jordan [5]<dr...@us.ibm.com>, Peter Furniss [6]<pete...@erebor.co.uk> Subject Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 294.2 - proposal for vote

For part [b] I would change:

These extensions are defined in the standard WS-BPEL namespace.

to read:

These extensions are defined in the standard WS-BPEL *executable* namespace.

Alex Yiu wrote:

Hi, all,

Here is the formal proposal for vote for issue 294.2: Clarification namespace usage in Abstract and Executable Process:

====================================== [a] At the end of Section: "13.1.1. URI", --------------------------------------

The Abstract Process syntax is denoted under the following namespace:

urn:oasis:names:tc:wsbpel:2.0:process:abstract

-------------------------------------- add: -------------------------------------- The Abstract Process namespace URI does not apply to <property>, <propertyAlias> and <service-ref> elements. That means, these elements are not declared in the Abstract Process namespace and MUST be always identified with Executable Process namespace URI, even when used in the context of Abstract Processes.

Similarly, any XPath function defined by this specification are always identified with Executable Process namespace URI, even when they are used in an expression in an Abstract Process. --------------------------------------

[b] Also formally incorporated the text suggested in action item #74: [7]http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1434

After these paragraph: -------------------------- The following XPath extension functions are defined by WS-BPEL and MUST be supported by a WS-BPEL implementation: . getVariableProperty, described below . doXslTransform, described in section 8.4. Assignment These extensions are defined in the standard WS-BPEL namespace. --------------------------

Add clarification text on XPath extension function for other NS, as follows: -------------------------- WS-BPEL processor MAY make XPath extension function of other namespace available. The declaration [editor todo: add xref here] does NOT cover those XPath extension functions and XPath functions of other namespace must be always understood by WS-BPEL processor. If unrecognized XPath function is used and if it is detected by static analysis, the process defintion MUST be rejected.

Also, the XPath extension functions, as always required by XPath semantics, MUST not perform any side-effect operations visible to the WS-BPEL process. -------------------------- ======================================

Thanks!

Regards, Alex Yiu

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: [8]https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

--------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that generates this mail. You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS at: [9]https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php

References

Visible links 1. mailto:smo...@de.ibm.com 2. mailto:dannyv@tibco.comto 3. mailto:alex...@oracle.com 4. mailto:wsb...@lists.oasis-open.org 5. mailto:dr...@us.ibm.com 6. mailto:pete...@erebor.co.uk 7. http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/action_item.php?action_item_id=1434 8. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php 9. https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php