RE: [wsbpel] Issue 247 Paco and Vinki's draft

Resending this message so it is attached to Issue 247

-----Original Message-----
From: Francisco Curbera [mailto:] 
Sent: Monday, March 13, 2006 4:49 PM
To: 
Subject: Re: [wsbpel] Issue 9 - proposal draft for discussion


Vinki and I took turns to go over the spec and collect places where static
analysis (SA) is required or might be granted. A draft of a SA appendix is
attached. It is of course only a first draft we can use for a discussion of
issue 9 on Monday.

About how the list was compiled: Vinki went included statements where
"static analysis" is explicitly requested. After that I went over places
where MUST/must occurs. This forced me to make judgements about which of
those MUSTs would require SA; in particular, I tried not to include purely
syntactic statements (i.e. about the "form" of individual elements), even if
some of those cannot be represented in XML Schema. The boundary between what
is pure syntax and what is not is relatively fuzzy so I believe we'll be
discussing that point.

Paco