Issue 9115: BPMN comment: additional artifacts (bpmn-ftf) Source: National TeleConsultants (Dr. Ugo Corda, ugo.corda@ntc.com) Nature: Uncategorized Issue Severity: Summary: The spec should specify which additional artifacts (e.g. WSDL files) are required to successfully generate BPEL processes. For example, sec. 6.16, Message mapping, refers to the "type attribute of the part". In case the type is a complex one, it looks like a WSDL file would be required in order to have the complete type description for BPEL generation purposes, but that is not mentioned in the spec. Resolution: Suggested Resolution: Close, No Change: This issue is out of scope for the RTF and will be addressed by the response to the BPMN 2.0 RFP. Revised Text: None Disposition: Closed, deferred Revised Text: Actions taken: October 25, 2005: received issue July 26, 2006: moved to bpmn-ftf July 18, 2008: closed issue Discussion: Discussion: While the Issue is valid, it represents a part of a larger issue reviewing and repairing a lot BPEL mapping issues. Thus, this Issue will be deferred and handled by a later version of BPMN. The work could be done as part of the BPDM RFP or as part of a new RFP or RTF. Thus, the Issue will be deferred, but a minor text revision will be included in the specification Revised Text: Section 11 (this section will probably be moved to an appendix), page 137, append the paragraph in that section: "Note that there are known issues with the mapping as specified. Fixes to these issues will be incorporated in a later revision of the specification." Disposition: Deferred End of Annotations:===== pec should specify which additional artifacts (e.g. WSDL files) are required to successfully generate BPEL processes. To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org Subject: Proposed Resolution for Issue 9115 X-Mailer: Lotus Notes Release 7.0 HF85 November 04, 2005 From: Stephen A White Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:31:15 -0800 X-MIMETrack: Serialize by Router on D03NM690/03/M/IBM(Release 6.53HF743 | November 3, 2005) at 02/20/2006 17:31:16, Serialize complete at 02/20/2006 17:31:16 The resolution and related information about the Issue can be found here: http://www.bpmn.org/FTF/Issues/Issue%209115.htm If you have any comments, questions, suggested revisions to the current resolution, or an alternative resolution, then reply to this message or speak up at a group meeting. Thanks. Date: Fri, 24 Feb 2006 12:47:01 -0800 From: Monica J Martin Subject: bpmn ftf 2/23/2006: Comment on Resolution of Issues 9115 and 9116 To: bpmn-ftf@omg.org X-Accept-Language: en-us, en User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.4) Gecko/20030624 Although I can understand the reasoning behind the resolutions to issues 9115 and 9116, I do have a concern. An errored mapping may only create confusion. I'd opt to only show the mapping where it is accurate (albeit incomplete) and identify it as such rather than leaving the errors. This is my suggested option. Otherwise, we confuse the user community (and a trivial warning fails to rectify that). Thanks. For example, sec. 6.16, Message mapping, refers to the "type attribute of the part". In case the type is a complex one, it looks like a WSDL file would be required in order to have the complete type description for BPEL generation purposes, but that is not mentioned in the spec.