Re: [wsbpel-abstract] FW: [wsbpel] Next Meeting of the "Informal"Abstract BPEL Clarification Working Group

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

> Rossomando: 2. Haven’t seen much discussion about the definition of 
> abstract BPEL so let’s get this one out. I assume no discussion means
>
> We aggress that Abstract BPEL can be viewed as a simple extension of 
> executable BPEL with the addition of one new element
>
> (i.e., opaque). While abstract BPEL is not executable, an Abstract 
> BPEL XML file must be xsd verifiable. This implies to me that
>
> what is left out of such an XML file will result in a file that is 
> still a valid BPEL file. Opaque can be omitted from an Abstract BPEL
>
> xml file if what is to be communicated is obvious to the targeted 
> audience. The use of opaque is a flag from the writer to the
>
> reader that added code is expected to be placed in the flagged 
> locations. There is a continuum between an Abstract BPEL XML file
>
> with all implied missing parts and one where in all missing parts are 
> flagged with the opaque element. This implies a mix of implied
>
> and opaque is possible.
>
mm1: See post specifically addressing the continuum. Thanks.

Reference: 
http://www.oasis-open.org/archives/wsbpel-abstract/200408/msg00007.html