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
>
>
>