Title: [sca-bpel] Issue 14: we forgot intents
Agreed.
Michael Rowley wrote:
"
type="cite">
I think
schemaTron rules are a good idea,
but I think they are not specific to issue 14. I think we should have
a new
issue for it.
Michael
From:
Danny van der
Rijn [mailto:]
Sent: Thursday, March
27, 2008
12:44 PM
To: Anish Karmarkar
Cc: OASIS BPEL
Subject: Re:
[sca-bpel] Issue 14:
we forgot intents
Agreed.
I had to
drop off the call during the discussion, but from the minutes, it seems
we also
ignored (intentionally or unintentionally) my thoughts about
Schematron.
Is there any interest in the committee for using Schematron to give a
little
more rigor to where items can be put, and in what combination?
Anish Karmarkar wrote:
We
resolved
issue 14 on today's call, but right after the call ended I
realized that we did not define an extension for specifying intends in
the BPEL process. In a previous call we had informally agreed that
specifying intends in the process made sense. Issue 14 is not just about
services and references but about everything that can be specified in
the process.
-Anish
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
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_workgroups.php
S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
