Making your e-business work  


    Reference Model
    Public Documents
    Wf-XML 2.0

About WfMC


Information and

Free downloads

Membership Information

Press Room

Excellence Awards

Marvin L Manheim Award

Workflow Handbook

   2006 NEW!

Associated sites:

Got a question?
Join our Discussion Forums
 Discussion Forum for Workgroups (WfMC-specific)

Workflow and BPM Research

BPM Community Forum

Keith Swenson CT0003 This paragraph mentions XML languages are case-insensitive I am pretty sure that XML is case

sensitive, meaning that all tags must be included in exactly the same casing. This was

purposefully included in XML to make parsing faster. If we use all lower case we must stick to all

lower case. I would recommend instead a mixed case where initial letters of words are capitalized,

even if they are in the middle of an identifier. Many XML proposals follow this pattern.

CSC/JCALS RW0004 Agree. WfMC members need to decide.

Keith Swenson RW0030 All XML identifiers should be made mixed case where initial letters of words are capitalized, even

if they are in the middle of an identifier. Underscores should not be used.

Issue 14

Resolution: The response should not include the entire request within it. instead, the request may contain a

<RequestID> value in it, and the resource must return that <RequestID> value with the response.

Keith Swenson CT0004 I am concerned if the entire request must be included in every response. In the case of HTTP it is

entirely unnecessary since the response must come back immediately after the request is delivered.

In the case of mail-based exchange, clearly something is needed.

A much simpler approach is that (1) if the protocol is not synchronous (e.g. email) then (2) the

request message must include a <RequestID> which contains a GUID generated by the requester.

This value can be as long as the requester requirest. The resource handling the request then

promises to include the <RequestID> in any response sent back, the requester can always match

up the response with the request. This does not require any agreement on how these GUIDs are

generated. It also saves a tremendous overhead on the response messages, especially in the HTTP

case where it is not needed. The need to <Request> and <Response> tags are also not needed.

Rainer Weber CT0026 2.2 Repetition of the request in the response I think this need not be described in the XML

description. It is up to the communication channel (http, mail, ...). For http, it need not be repeated

(as indicated by Keith Swenson). Proposal: Leave it out, add it to the (new) section on the

communication channel (see 2.1).

David CT0075 Personally I would avoid the need to replay the full message when replying.

Solving this requirement with session and sequence numbering caters only for some

implementation environments and there is the outstanding question of relating the methods to the

underlying transport mechanisms (synchronous/asynchronous) and whether message packing

into the underlying transport container is supported in some transport environments. this is a

difficult area and probably requires more discussion ?? (or could we define different

implementation rules for different environments - not desirable if we can avoid it).

Friday, June 09, 2000 Page 4 of 18
First Previous Next Last
Published Docs
Reference Model
XPDL support

Wf-XML 2.0

Information Services
Info Services
Workflow Handbook

How to join
Country Chapters
List of members


Workflow Handbook 2006

CDROM Companion to the Workflow Handbook 2005


horizontal rule

home | membership | standards | info | events | members only

All brand names and product names mentioned in this website are trademarks or service marks of their respective companies. Any omission or misuse should not be regarded as intent to infringe on the property of others. The WfMC recognizes and respects all marks used by companies, manufacturers and developers as a means to distinguish their products. The “WfMC” logo and “Workflow Management Coalition” are service marks of the Workflow Management Coalition.

horizontal rule