RE: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and executable processes

["Yaron Goland" <ygoland@bea.com>]

This seems reasonable to me. We also should probably remove the schemas from
the doc and publish them as stand alone files.

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 12:53 PM
> To: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and
> executable processes
>
>
> http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue24
>
> i submitted this issue a while ago, and there hasn't been any
> discussion.
> phil pointed out to me that it's been languishing.  the
> statement of the
> issue is simple:
>
> "Separate schemas for the executable vs. the abstract forms
> of BPEL would
> allow validation by schema, rather than by hand-coded rules
> based on spec
> verbiage. "
>
> consider this a call for discussion.  if there's no
> discussion in the next 3
> weeks, i'll propose a vote on the issue one week before our
> next meeting.
>
> danny
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from
> the roster of the OASIS TC), go to
> http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/le
> ave_workgroup.php.
>
>