Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote

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

rkhalaf wrote:

>> Goland: 1) Superset - a superset of executable processes, that is, 
>> all features and functionality available in executable processes are 
>> available in abstract processes.
>
> Khalaf: This would have to be a separate issue. This issue deals with 
> clarification not rearchitecture. If you want to bring this up, valid 
> arguments should be made for all the cases in the fork, perhaps as 
> each being its own issues. That way we can pull up only things that 
> make sense. Either way, my proposal does not close doors for going up 
> related venues syntactically. It explains about abstract processes so 
> that we can have intelligent discussions in the other issues about the 
> specifics such as syntax etc.

mm1: Can you more explicitly state the reasoning for response, Rania? If 
the issue was: we don't understand abstract processes, what they are and 
how they are used, and we need to put a definition to it. Then, how can 
a proposed definition be rearchitecting? Is that definition specific to 
your use case rather than Yaron's or other TC members? Thank you.