Re: [wsbpel] Updated FAQ

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

It could cause confusion to explicitly talk about the BPMN-BPEL mapping 
in current BPMN because it is incomplete. In that group, it has even 
been discussed to delete it because of the gaps/issues that exist. I'd 
suggest we steer clear of this mention unless we wish to indicate that 
BPMN seeks to model business processes such as, at some level, those 
expressed using BPEL. Note, it is BPEL4WS not WS-BPEL (1.1 not 2.0).

All in all, equally potentially confusing (is that a sentence?). If you 
retain b., suggest you say that it is possible to represent. There is 
currently no mapping defined for WS-BPEL 2.0 in BPMN. Thanks.

>Eckenfels. Bernd wrote: Question 4 looks like the sentence is cut off. I would use the following
>instead:
>.....b. It is possible to represent WS-BPEL2.0 diagrams in BPMN. Some vendors
>may chose this representation. 
>  
>