[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - Proposal for vote
I'm still not crazy about the following statement but I guess I can live with it: "Abstract process constructs are based on those of executable processes..." The apparent implication here is that abstract processes can only be generated from BPEL executable processes. > -----Original Message----- > From: Charlton Barreto [mailto:cbarreto@adobe.com] > Sent: Thursday, February 16, 2006 8:21 AM > To: Rania Khalaf; wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - Proposal for vote > > Attached is a zip archive (change the extension to .zip to > expand) of the > spec text, based on a clean snapshot of the latest draft, > containing my > approved resolution for Issue 82.1 with Rania's amendment(s). > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > -Charlton. > -- > Adobe Systems Incorporated > +1 (408) 536-4496 p > cbarreto@adobe.com > > -----Original Message----- > From: Rania Khalaf [mailto:rkhalaf@watson.ibm.com] > Sent: Thursday, 16 February 2006 08:17 > To: Charlton Barreto > Cc: wsbpel@lists.oasis-open.org > Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 82.1 - Proposal for vote > > Hi guys, > > Here are the proposed consistency changes for 82.1 that I promised to > send out during yesterday's call. > > CHANGES PROPOSED : > __________________ > > CHANGE 1 > --------- > Modify the definition of executable completion add a new > first bullet : > > *)is derived by: > *)changing the namespace to that of executable BPEL and > removing the > profile URI > *)and using some combination of the following transformation ... > a)Opaque Token Replacement ... > b)Addition of BPEL Constructs: Adding new ... > *is a valid ... > > CHANGE 2 > --------- > > from: > ---- > There is no fundamental expressive power distinction between abstract > and executable processes. Abstract process constructs are > based on those > of executable processes, while allow opacity and omission. To > accommodate this flexibility, the XML Schema for the Common Base of > Abstract Process does not reuse any definitions from XML > Schema for the > Executable Process. The two have distinct namespaces: one for abstract > and one for executable. > > to: > ----- > There is no fundamental expressive power distinction between abstract > and executable processes. To accommodate the syntactic flexibility > introduced by allowing opacity and omission in the syntax of abstract > processes, the XML Schema for the Common Base of Abstract > Processes does > not reuse any definitions from XML Schema for the Executable > Processes. > The two have distinct namespaces: one for abstract BPEL processes and > one for executable BPEL processes. > > Regards, > Rania > > > Charlton Barreto wrote: > > Attached is a zip archive (change the extension to .zip to > expand) of > > the spec text, based on a clean snapshot of the latest > draft, capturing > > my proposed resolution for Issue 82.1. This is identical to > the copy I > > sent last week reflecting our discussions at the > 2006-Feb-08 conference > > call. > > > > > > > > Please let me know if you have any questions. > > > > > > > > Best, > > > > > > > > -Charlton. > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > *Charlton Barreto* > > Sr .Computer Scientist > > Adobe Systems Incorporated > > 345 Park Avenue, MS E15 > > San Jose, CA 95110-2704 USA > > 408.536.4496 p > > 415.692.5396 v > > cbarreto@adobe.com > > > > > > > >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]