Hi John,
I've included the relevant text below:
Rania Khalaf wrote:
> This wording that you quote below is okay with me.
>
> :)
> Rania
>
> Alex Yiu wrote:
>
>>
>> Hi Rania,
>>
>> I still prefer the paragraph based on what Diane and I suggested
>> during the conf call:
>>
>> In this specification we differentiate concepts required for
>> abstract business process description from the concepts for
>> executable in the section "WS-BPEL Abstract Processes".
>>
>> Please note that: the "clearly separate concepts" phrase is in
>> original spec text of BPEL 1.1. And, changing it in to "differentiate
>> concepts" already softens the tone quite a lot.
>>
>> In dictionary, the "differentiate" word means "show the difference in
>> or between". That is exactly what we are trying to do in Section 13.
>> And, nobody can deny that there are differences between Abs and Exec
>> BPEL. Hence, the usage of word "differentiate" in that sentence is
>> more than appropriate. It is quite objective and neutral.
>>
>> Furthermore, Abs BPEL is the superset of Exec BPEL. That means, some
>> Abs BPEL are not Exec BPEL. An Abs BPEL cannot be interpreted as if
>> it was an Exec BPEL due to omission, even the Abs BPEL does not make
>> use any opacity and even AbsBPEL happens to look like an Exec BPEL.
>>
>> All these means: Abs BPEL syntax overload and override Exec BPEL
>> syntax for its own semantics. (overload and override in the
>> Object-Oriented sense) and applies its "modified" semantics on Exec
>> BPEL syntax. .... So "additional concepts" in your suggestion may
>> give users _a false impression_ that Abs BPEL does NOT override Exec
>> BPEL semantics.
>>
>> (Side note: In OO analysis, a child class can add a new method
>> without overriding method of the parent class. That is qualified as
>> "additional". But, a child class override a method of the parent
>> class. That is beyond "additional".)
>>
>> To be frank, in BPEL 2.0, via abstract process clarification, we have
>> spelled out more differences between Abstract and Exec BPEL
>> explicitly, instead of being in the riddler's land of Abs BPEL in
>> BPEL 1.1 spec. If we were not striking for spirit of compromise, the
>> wording of "clearly separate" would not be softened at all.
>>
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>>
>>
>> Regards,
>> Alex Yiu
Cheers,
-Charlton.
--
Adobe Systems Incorporated
+1 (408) 536-4496 p
cbarreto@adobe.com
-----Original Message-----
From: John Evdemon [mailto:John.Evdemon@microsoft.com]
Sent: Friday, 10 February 2006 11:39
To: Alex Yiu; Rania Khalaf; wsbpeltc
Cc: curbera@us.ibm.com; dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com; Charlton Barreto; Monica J.
Martin
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Abstract Process wording in Section 1 and Section 4
Can you re-post the agreed-upon spec text?
Perhaps I missed it.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Alex Yiu [mailto:alex.yiu@oracle.com]
> Sent: Wednesday, February 08, 2006 7:40 PM
> To: Rania Khalaf;
wsbpeltc
> Cc: curbera@us.ibm.com; dieterkoenig@de.ibm.com;
Alex Yiu;
> Charlton Barreto; 'Monica J. Martin'
> Subject: [wsbpel] Abstract Process wording in
Section 1 and Section 4
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> During conf call, Rania suggested to change some
wording spec text
> regarding Abstract Process. After the conf call,
Rania and I
> exchanged a
> couple of emails. It seems to me that we come to
a consensus point.
>
> If no objection is heard, we would create an
action item for
> the editor
> group to act on.
>
> Thanks!
>
>
> Regards,
> Alex Yiu
>
>
>
> Rania Khalaf
wrote:
>
> > This wording that you quote below is okay
with me.
> >
> > :)
> > Rania
> >
> > Alex Yiu wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Rania,
> >>
> >> I still prefer the paragraph based on
what Diane and I suggested
> >> during the conf call:
> >>
> >> In this specification we
differentiate concepts required for
> >> abstract business process
description from the concepts for
> >> executable in the section
"WS-BPEL Abstract Processes".
> >>
> [stuff deleted]
>
>
>
>
>
>
---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must
leave the OASIS TC that
> generates this mail. You may a link to this
group and all
> your TCs in OASIS
> at:
>
https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgr
oups.php
>
>