[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 99 - Some proposed wording
Hi all, I am again thinking out loud here ... :-) If we want to have a good schema validation of Abstract Process vs Executable Process, we may want to have have different two different QNAMEs or two different namespace for Abstract vs Executeable Process. (That is basically issue 24). Judging from one of emails from Satish on Issue 24, (http://lists.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel/200312/msg00140.html) I guess he also prefers having two namespaces. If we have two different namespaces, Yaron's three-value attribute of abstractProcess will be reduced back to a two-value / boolean attribute. Here is a suggestion: fragment="yes"|"no" or complete="yes"|"no" Issue 24 execution has been in the "kitchen" sink for a while. I would suggest the editing subgroup (including myself) to make a small incremental change first to the spec in the coming few weeks to reflect the desire of having two namespaces. After voting on issue 99, 107 and etc, we will work the remaining details for Issue 24, i.e. separating those 2 schemas while keeping some linkage in using XML Schema construct. What do you guys think? Thanks! Regards, Alex Yiu Yaron Y. Goland wrote: I am thinking of putting the following up for vote as a resolution to issue 99. What do y'all think? |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]