I agree that we should do this -- anyone disagree?
Satish
-----Original Message-----
From: Danny van der Rijn [mailto:]
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 9:01 PM
To: John Evdemon;
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and
executable processes
yes. that was the issue i raised. and then yaron pointed out that once
separated, the schemata should be published as well.
danny
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Evdemon" <>
To: "Danny van der Rijn" <>;
<>
Sent: Friday, December 12, 2003 5:21 PM
Subject: RE: [wsbpel] Issue 24 - separate schemata for abstract and
executable processes
On Friday, December 12, 2003 4:32 PM, Danny van der Rijn wrote:
>
> while the current schemas were published, the current document still
has the
> schemas, i believe. and the current schemas don't provide separate
schemas
> for abstract and executable processes.
>
> if i'm showing the effects of jet lag, please let me know..
>
I think the schemas should remain in the spec (appendices) _and_ be made
available as separate files (as they are now).
The current spec doesn't use separate schemas for abstract and
executable processes - isn't this one of the reasons you raised issue #
24?
John
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the
OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr
oup.php.
To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of
the OASIS TC), go to
http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/wsbpel/members/leave_workgr
oup.php.
