[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and executable processes
I agree that we should do this -- anyone disagree? Satish -----Original Message----- From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:dannyv@tibco.com] Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:01 PM To: John Evdemon; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and executable processes yes. that was the issue i raised. and then yaron pointed out that once separated, the schemata should be published as well. danny ----- Original Message ----- From: "John Evdemon" <jevdemon@microsoft.com> To: "Danny van der Rijn" <dannyv@tibco.com>; <wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:21 PM Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and executable processes On Friday, December 12, 2003 4:32 PM, Danny van der Rijn wrote: > > while the current schemas were published, the current document still has the > schemas, i believe. and the current schemas don't provide separate schemas > for abstract and executable processes. > > if i'm showing the effects of jet lag, please let me know.. > I think the schemas should remain in the spec (appendices) _and_ be made available as separate files (as they are now). The current spec doesn't use separate schemas for abstract and executable processes - isn't this one of the reasons you raised issue # 24? John To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr oup.php. To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr oup.php.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]