Issue 109: Proposal to Vote - Compatibility between Abstract andExecutable Processes

[Monica J Martin <Monica.Martin@Sun.COM>]

Reference: 
http://www.choreology.com/external/WS_BPEL_issues_list.html#Issue109

Issue 109 is handled in part by Issue 82 and its subissues, 82.1-.3.  
For example, they are related (but not subject to any requested 
dependency, i.e. there is no requirement that other subissues must be 
closed before 109 is):

    * Map to Issue 82. Reason: Reference to executable completion.
    * Map to Issue 82.1. Reason:  Ensures syntax and validation of
      abstract BPEL is consistent as applicable with the executable
      BPEL.  Relates to compatibility.
    * Map to Issue 82.2: Promote consistency between common base and
      abstract process (Note: At the time this issue was written, we had
      not identified a common base).
    * Map to Issue 82.3. Reason: Promote consistency between any example
      abstract process and any profile examples developed (Note: At the
      time this issue was written, we had not identified a usage profile
      concept).
    * In Section 15.2 that talks about executable completion, add: 
          o Where an abstract process is used [1], a compatible EP an
            executable completion of the permitted completions of the
            applicable AP profile that implements the associated
            abstract process and its constraints if any.

Rania, this is the consolidated proposal that I had forwarded to you. 
Thank you.

[1] Compatible if there is an EP and associated AP. EP could exist 
without AP.