Re: [sca-bpel] [ISSUE 62] More on multiplicity 0..1 - Updated Proposal#3

[Danny van der Rijn <dannyv@tibco.com>]

Thanks for the other changes, and rebuttals.  Further conversation on this one, though:

On 2/19/2010 7:29 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:

- " Wired by Implementation Reference."  My brain stumbles parsing this.  I can offer suggestions along the lines of Process-Initialized Reference
<mje>
"Wired by Implementation" is the term used in the Assembly spec.
I am loathe to move away from what is used in the Assembly spec.
I'd be happy for you to raise an issue in Assembly to change the term used in that spec and
then reflect that back here.  I note that this term was created expressly for the BPEL spec
and is not used by any other Implementation spec as far as I am aware....
</mje>

<vdR> I don't have problems with the Wired by Implementation term.  I have problems with the construction of the term/sentence.  "A Reference which is Wired by Implementation" would be fine with me, but it's not a great definition of a term.  Do we even need the names in the section?  Are they referred to elsewhere?  </vdR>

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature