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

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

> Khalaf: 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.

mm2: I understand and agree that a profile may subset. I however, do not 
agree it is a subset of the common base. Otherwise, we have no common base.

>>> 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.
>