[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Proposed spec text for Issue 82.1
Hi Charlton, I find the sentence below confusing because we always say AP uses the syntax of EP but with opacity and omission but reading the sentence below it gives the feeling that the two are completely disjoint and unrelated which I find confusing. I would suggest changing the following sentence: ---- FROM ---- There is no fundamental expressive power distinction between abstract and executable processes, yet they support grammars which are distinct from one another. Thus, the XML Schema for the common base does not share any details with the XML Schema for executable processes. This is supported by the use of two distinct namespaces: one for abstract processes, and another for executable processes ---- TO: ---- There is no fundamental expressive power distinction between abstract and executable processes. Abstract processes use the same syntactic constructs as executable BPEL, but allow opacity and omission. To accomodate the flexibility in the Base, the XML Schema for Abstract BPEL does not reuse the definitions from the Executable BPEL XML Schema. The two also have distinct namespaces: one for abstract and one for executable. Charlton Barreto wrote: > Attached is a clean snapshot of the latest draft spec with my proposed > changes for Issue 82.1 (I have archived it in a .zzz file – either “jar > xvf <filename>.zzz” or just rename the archive to .zip and expand it > with WinZip). > > > > Please review and provide any feedback that you may have…. > > > > -Charlton. > > -- > > > > *Charlton Barreto* > Sr .Computer Scientist > Adobe Systems Incorporated > 345 Park Avenue, MS E15 > San Jose, CA 95110-2704 USA > 408.536.4496 p > 415.692.5396 v > cbarreto@adobe.com > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]