[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82 - propsal for a vote (last, no change log)
> Khalaf: ....................A profile MUST not violate the common > base. Specifically, a profile defines > > (i) A URI that identifies the profile and is used as the value of the > abstractProcessProfile attribute by all abstract processes that belong > to the class defined by the profile. > (ii) A class of abstract processes that is a subset of the common > base, i.e., the set of syntactically valid abstract processes that > belong to the profile. Note that the subset does not have to be > proper, i.e., it may include the entire common base. Examples include > profiles that disallow control links or certain types of opaque > tokens. Note further that the subset must be consistent with respect > to the use of the omission-shortcut. Specifically, if a profile limits > the use of opaque tokens in the class of abstract processes it covers, > then it can only permit those omissions that correspond to permitted > usage of opaque tokens. For instance, if a profile does not allow > attributes to be opaque, then abstract processes belonging to that > profile cannot omit attributes using the omission-shortcut. mm1: We have not discussed that a profile would revise / subset the common base.
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]