RE: [wsbpel] RE: [spell] Issue - 72 - Proposal to vote

["Ugo Corda" <UCorda@SeeBeyond.com>]

Paco,

> For clarity, I think this is what the latest modifications amount to:
> 
> a) In developing the BPEL language, where reference is made to
> specifications that are in BP 1.0 scope,  the BP 1.0 
> interpretations will
> normally be followed.
> 
> (I don't really understand the reason for Ugo's replacement of
> recommendations by requirements in a).)

My proposal was to replace "interpretations" (not "recommendations" - ?) with "requirements". The reason is that "interpretation" implies making decisions on parts of the original specs that are underspecified or erroneous. But, as Yaron pointed out, not all BP Requirements cases are necessarily like that, and in those other cases there is nothing to interpret.

The term "requirements" seems to better capture the reference to the BP 1.0 Requirements (not a surprise ;-).

Ugo