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

["Jim Clune" <jim@parasoft.com>]

I like the idea of introducing tighter type-checking by distinguishing
between abstract and executable processes in the schema. However, I'm
wondering if this might be better solved by distinguishing between abstract
and executable types where appropriate within a single schema. The current
schema has a single top-level element definition named process of type
bpws:tProcess. The tProcess is a complex type which is defined in terms of
its complexContent. Perhaps bpws:tProcess could be defined in terms of an
xs:choice definition that has as its choices xs:elements of type
bpws:tProcessAbstract and bpws:tProcessExecutable. A similar naming
convention could be used for other types that have different contents for
the abstract and executable versions. Types that have identical constraints
for the executable and abstract versions could use a single type definition
without the "Abstract" or "Executable" suffix.

The primary advantage I see with this approach is that process documents
could always be validated with respect to a single schema. This facilitates
validation against a schema without knowing or determining first which type
of process it is. A secondary benefit could be that it encourages reusing a
single type definition for both versions where appropriate. The latter
benefit is a weaker one because it could also be achieved by having three
schemas: an abstract version, an executable version, and a base version that
both the others import.

Jim Clune
Parasoft Corporation          email: jim.clune@parasoft.com
101 E. Huntington Ave.      voice: (626) 256-3680
Monrovia, CA.  91016           fax  : (626) 305-9048
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Danny van der Rijn" <dannyv@tibco.com>
To: "John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:01 PM
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and
executable processes


> yes.  that was the issue i raised.  and then yaron pointed out that once
> separated, the schemata should be published as well.
>
> danny
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: "John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com>
> To: "Danny van der Rijn" <dannyv@tibco.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org>
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:21 PM
> Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and
> executable processes
>
>
> On Friday, December 12, 2003 4:32 PM, Danny van der Rijn wrote:
> >
> > while the current schemas were published, the current document still
> has the
> > schemas, i believe.  and the current schemas don't provide separate
> schemas
> > for abstract and executable processes.
> >
> > if i'm showing the effects of jet lag, please let  me know..
> >
> I think the schemas should remain in the spec (appendices) _and_ be made
> available as separate files (as they are now).
>
> The current spec doesn't use separate schemas for abstract and
> executable processes - isn't this one of the reasons you raised issue #
> 24?
>
> John
>
>
>
>
>
> 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/leave_workgroup.php.
>
>
> 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/leave_workgroup.php.
>