Re: [Fwd: Re: [wsbpel] abstract process strawman]

["Monica J. Martin" <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

>Thatte: Just terminology I think.
>  
>
>Khalaf: Tony wants to recap all the restrictions in the spec into one section 
>that reiterates what it means for a BPEL process to conform to the 
>specification . The one in the abstract process doc is about an 
>executable artifact having the same externally visible behavior as an 
>abstract process.
>  
>
mm1: Perhaps his point was how can you specify conformance of the 
executable to an abstract unless the conformance of the executable 
and/or abstract has a defined baseline. This relates to my point to 
Satish about two levels of conformance that could be specified: To the 
specification and to a process definition. Thanks.