[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - Updated !
Ah, I see it now. I'll correct it and repost the doc.... -----Original Message----- From: Rania Khalaf [mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com] Sent: Thursday, 16 February, 2006 13:25 To: Charlton Barreto Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - Updated ! Oh John, you are right it is still there. Charlton, the second change did not make it into the document. I have updated it in the attached doc. Everything else is the same : thanks! Rania Charlton Barreto wrote: > Attached is a zip archive (change the extension to .zip to expand) of the > spec text, based on a clean snapshot of the latest draft, containing my > approved resolution for Issue 82.1 with Rania's amendment(s). > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > -Charlton. > -- > Adobe Systems Incorporated > +1 (408) 536-4496 p > cbarreto@adobe.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rania Khalaf [mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2006 08:17 > To: Charlton Barreto > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - Proposal for vote > > Hi guys, > > Here are the proposed consistency changes for 82.1 that I promised to > send out during yesterday's call. > > CHANGES PROPOSED : > __________________ > > CHANGE 1 > --------- > Modify the definition of executable completion add a new first bullet : > > *)is derived by: > *)changing the namespace to that of executable BPEL and removing the > profile URI > *)and using some combination of the following transformation ... > a)Opaque Token Replacement ... > b)Addition of BPEL Constructs: Adding new ... > *is a valid ... > > CHANGE 2 > --------- > > from: > ---- > 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. > > to: > ----- > There is no fundamental expressive power distinction between abstract > and executable processes. To accommodate the syntactic flexibility > introduced by allowing opacity and omission in the syntax of abstract > processes, the XML Schema for the Common Base of Abstract Processes does > not reuse any definitions from XML Schema for the Executable Processes. > The two have distinct namespaces: one for abstract BPEL processes and > one for executable BPEL processes. > > Regards, > Rania > > > Charlton Barreto wrote: > >>Attached is a zip archive (change the extension to .zip to expand) of >>the spec text, based on a clean snapshot of the latest draft, capturing >>my proposed resolution for Issue 82.1. This is identical to the copy I >>sent last week reflecting our discussions at the 2006-Feb-08 conference >>call. >> >> >> >>Please let me know if you have any questions. >> >> >> >>Best, >> >> >> >>-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]