Re: [wsbpel-abstract] RE: My Abstract & Executable BPEL ProcessesUnified note [was Re: [wsbpel-abstract] Strawman for discussion]

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

> Trikovic: Regarding issue 99: Abstract processes cannot be 
> instantiated and executed - therefore "lifecycle" activities play 
> little or no role for abstract processes. Also the BPEL specification 
> is saying that BPEL executable processes must contain at least one 
> "start activity". So opaque activity is not really necessary in this 
> case (issue 99) - the specification is clear about places which need 
> to be further specified (or concretised) when mapping an abstract 
> process to an executable process.
>
mm1: Is it not true that the abstract subgroup was formed to fully 
understand what the abstract process was and also provide more 
information to determine _if_ the specification is clear about places 
which need to be further specified (or concretised) when mapping an 
abstract process to an executable process? Establishing the scope and 
use of the abstract process may result in changes to the assumptions in 
the existing specification, correct? Thank you.