RE: [cam-comment] Sorry for missing the party so far

[David RR Webber - XML ebusiness <Gnosis_@compuserve.com>]

Martin,

We do have a few gals as well (yeah I know the industry is wildly too
macho a profession!).

In answer to the question on the BP and assembly - the approach
intended is that you have separate assembly templates for each
step of the BP.  That way you can more easily re-use those step
centric templates across BPs.

However - as you suggest - you could package them all together
under a 'master' template - and include in the sub-assembly
 for the specific step - based on the value of a context variable.

I would say the preferred approach is separate templates.  As
you note - this then allows the BP script to reference each 
template by UID reference or URL directly.

Is there more than that - or is that sufficient here?

Thanks, DW.
======================================================
Message text written by INTERNET:martin.me.roberts@bt.com
> 
Gents, 
        I seem to have missed the subsrciption to the CAM membership and I
apologise as it was an oversight on my part.  I am intending to revise my
example of the assembly I provided before to conform to the new doc.

        However, I have a question. 

        Are you intending there to be one Assembly for a whole set of
documents that are used in a Business Process? 

        If so I think it would be good to have a formal way of linking
these
in the BPSS or any other document.  For example you have used as:choiceID
against a Structure, I wonder if for that level we need to have
StractureName which could be formally mentioned in the referncing document?

Martin Roberts
xml designer,
BTexact Technologies
e-mail: martin.me.roberts@bt.com
tel: +44(0) 1473 609785
<http://clickdial.bt.co.uk/clickdial?001609785.cld> clickdial
fax: +44(0) 1473 609834 
<