Re: [sca-bpel] [ISSUE 62] More on multiplicity 0..1 - Updated Proposal#3

Thanks for the other changes, and rebuttals.  Further conversation on
this one, though:

On 2/19/2010 7:29 AM, Mike Edwards wrote:
- " Wired by Implementation Reference."
 My
brain stumbles parsing this.  I can offer suggestions along
the lines of Process-Initialized Reference
  

  <mje>
  

  "Wired by
Implementation"
is the term used in the Assembly spec.
  

  I am loathe to
move
away from what is used in the Assembly spec.
  

  I'd be happy for
you
to raise an issue in Assembly to change the term used in that spec and
  

  then reflect that
back
here.  I note that this term was created expressly for the BPEL spec
  

  and is not used
by
any other Implementation spec as far as I am aware....
  

  </mje>

  

<vdR> I don't have problems with the Wired by Implementation
term.  I have problems with the construction of the term/sentence.  "A
Reference which is Wired by Implementation" would be fine with me, but
it's not a great definition of a term.  Do we even need the names in
the section?  Are they referred to elsewhere?  </vdR>

S/MIME Cryptographic Signature