Re: [sca-bpel] Issue 14: we forgot intents

[Anish Karmarkar <Anish.Karmarkar@oracle.com>]

Danny van der Rijn wrote:
> Agreed.  I had to drop off the call during the discussion, but from the 
> minutes, it seems we also ignored (intentionally or unintentionally) my 
> thoughts about Schematron. 

Danny,

On the last call, in fact, I called out your schematron issue. 
Unfortunately, I think, you had dropped off the call. Since there was no 
objection, the motion got approved.

-Anish
--

> Is there any interest in the committee for 
> using Schematron to give a little more rigor to where items can be put, 
> and in what combination?
> 
> Anish Karmarkar wrote:
>>
>> We resolved issue 14 on today's call, but right after the call ended I
>> realized that we did not define an extension for specifying intends in
>> the BPEL process. In a previous call we had informally agreed that
>> specifying intends in the process made sense. Issue 14 is not just about
>> services and references but about everything that can be specified in
>> the process.
>>
>> -Anish
>> --
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in 
>> OASIS
>> at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>