Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82 - propsal for a vote (last, no change log)

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

Hi,

This is a textual clarification that says the same thing as the old text 
did when it said

that a profile can reduce the kinds of things that can be opaque and can 
also choose to do things like for example not allow links, or not allow 
event handlers.

The idea of subsetting the syntax is  a cleaner way to define this that 
was proposed in response to a request for clarifying the above idea.



Monica J. Martin wrote:

>
>> 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.