Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote

[rkhalaf <rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com>]

-the specification is not a gate but a starting point.

Martin Chapman wrote:
> +1 - the sub group had no such restrictions on its chater so why add
> them in now?
> 
> 
>>-----Original Message-----
>>From: Monica J. Martin [mailto:Monica.Martin@Sun.COM] 
>>Sent: 13 October 2004 19:28
>>To: rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com
>>Cc: ygoland@bea.com; Martin Chapman; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org
>>Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue - 82 - Proposal for Vote
>>
>>
>>rkhalaf wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Hi Monica,
>>>
>>>The proposal in (1) makes abstract BPEL's syntax a strict superset of
>>>executable BPEL. This is not what is in the specification.
>>>
>>>The issue 82 is to clarify what abstract bpel is (mainly wordsmithing
>>>as the issue states) and to have a better definition not to change 
>>>what it is or how it is.  The other issues are being used to do that 
>>>such as 107 etc .. Changing structure goes under rearchitecting.
>>>
>>
>>mm1: This restriction was not a part of the subgroup discussion, and 
>>clearly was not placed on the scope of the recent TC 
>>participation until 
>>you specified it.  Why did the subgroup spend 5+ months trying 
>>to define 
>>it if the boundary was the specification as a gate? To coin 
>>Satish, this 
>>is 'false economy.' Thank you.
>>
>>
> 
> 
> 
> 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_workgroup.php.