OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

wsbpel message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: Re: [wsbpel] Proposed spec text for Issue 82.1


Hi Rania,

 

I think this generally makes it easier to cover the concept. Here’s how I propose we express it:

 

“There is no fundamental expressive power distinction between abstract and executable processes. Abstract process constructs are based on those of executable processes, while allow opacity and omission. To accommodate this flexibility, the XML Schema for the Common Base of Abstract Process does not reuse any definitions from XML Schema for the Executable Process. The two have distinct namespaces: one for abstract and one for executable.”

 

Let me know what you think….

 

-Charlton.

--

Adobe Systems Incorporated

+1 (408) 536-4496 p

cbarreto@adobe.com

 

Rania Khalaf <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>

02/08/2006 12:21 PM

To

Charlton Barreto <cbarreto@adobe.com>

cc

wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org

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
>
>  
>

 

smime.p7s



[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]