Issue - 99 - Some proposed wording

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

I am thinking of putting the following up for vote as a resolution to 
issue 99. What do y'all think?

	Yaron

The introductory sentence in section 15 shall be amended to read "These 
are extensions for the business protocol usage pattern."

The following text or a variant adopted at the discretion of the 
editor's group which only differs in non-normative ways where changes 
are made for editorial purposes shall be inserted into section 15:

------------------------------

15.X Abstract Process Fragments

An abstract process that chooses not to specify how it is initiated is 
referred to as an abstract process fragment. An abstract process 
fragment follows all the same syntactic and semantic rules as other 
abstract processes with the exception that they do not specify how they 
are initiated and therefore do not contain start activities. An abstract 
process fragment MUST set the value of the abstractProcess attribute on 
the process element to 'abstactFragment'. If an abstract process does 
not contain start activities and the abstractProcess attribute value is 
not set to 'abstractFragment' then the abstract process definition is 
invalid.

------------------------------

The first reference to the abstractProcess attribute in section 6.2 
shall be amended to include the option 'abstractFragment'. The second 
reference shall be amended to read 'This attribute specifies whether the 
process being defined is abstract, an abstract fragment or executable. 
The default for this attribute is "no".'

The definition of the abstractProcess attribute in the schema shall be 
changed so as to allow for the values of 'yes', 'no' and 'abstractFragment'.