see inline,
abbie
-----Original Message-----
From: Alex Rousskov [mailto:rousskov(_at_)measurement-factory(_dot_)com]
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:54 AM
To: Barbir, Abbie [CAR:1A11:EXCH]
Cc: Markus Hofmann; OPES Group
Subject: RE: Strawman OPES Charter
On Tue, 13 Jul 2004, Abbie Barbir wrote:
Would it be appropriate to mention that the rules work
will be based
on P language specification that WG has already worked
on? Or are we
going to re-select among P, IRML, and others as a starting point?
If we are going to re-select, should we start with a "language
requirements" document?
obsultly, yes we should do a requirement document.
Abbie,
Just to make sure: which of the following you consider essential:
a) forget about P choice, start from scratch, write a
formal "language requirements" document, then select among
IRML, P, and possibly other candidates.
b) confirm past P choice, but write a "language requirements"
document or section, before proceeding with polishing P
c) confirm P choice, and do not write a "language
requirements" document/section
well, I go for option a) to be frank. However, I can live with b) or c) if
the WG wants that.
- Defining an interface between rules language
and service (at least OCP-speaking service)
How to pass parameters to services? How to
get the result of service application, including
errors, back to the language/program?
this is a muddy situation. we can rely on other work or at least
reference how they handel it (examples, BPEL, CDL etc..)
I think there is an important difference between reusing
existing work and not doing any work.
First, we need to decide whether we should define the said
interface. The first charter draft does not seem to include
it. Iff we are chartered to define the rules-services
interface, then I would look at reusing WSDL core for
describing OCP-talking callout services and describing a
P:WSDL mapping of sorts (a BPEL equivalent for OPES?).
However, if we are not chartered to define the rules-services
interface, then WSDL and other W3C-technologies reuse becomes
irrelevant/future work.
abbie,
Agree, u read my mind there.
It seems to me that we must have a P-services interface
because without it, how will P interpreters map service calls
to OCP transactions? How will they make service parameters
available to P programmers to set? Will P interpreters report
service failures in a consistent way across implementations?
All these questions were already on P and even IRML to-do list, IIRC.
--abbie
Was that raised in a REQUIREMENTS document?
Just being a devil advocate here!!!!
If we decide to go down that path, the second question
becomes whether the P-services interface is OCP specific or
more general? Do we want to restrict P-invokable services to
OCP-talking services? To any WSDL-describable services? To
something else? Should this important decision be done now or
after we finish the new charter. That is, do we add the
answer or just the action item to the charter?
---abbie
This is why I said it is muddy. I really do not know the answere right now
(It is a matter of scoping).
However, I think we should explore these issues ASAP.
SNIP
abbie