"kukeltje" wrote : Come on Tom.... Now I do not get you anymore... you opposed the addition of the variable type to the jdpl file so strongly and now in addition to a name, a mappedname and a description, a new label is added? Then please include the variable type as well, and now I come to think of it, why not include the coordinates as well (like xpdl) | there are a lot of things that i don't want. * usage of the id attribute and an optional name attribute would be nice xml, but backwards incompatible * forced label declaration separate from the id. probably this was the spark that made me something that i do want : an optional extra attribute called label. sorry if this is what you already proposed before. As for the variable declarations, I have already changed my mind on that some time ago. I think it would be good to have it in, although, there is no need for it now, there are some extensions in the core engine that i want like variable initialization and type declaration. Both optional, of course. Mostly, the variable declarations also can have there benefits for the GPD. So that the GPD can offer drop downs instead of text boxes for variables. I don't treat this as a priority yet. Since there is no actual usage for it now. Also the way to use user-defined variable declaration data in e.g. forms has to be studied further for it to work in a general case. "kukeltje" wrote : The name is to be unique (like an id) is, on transitions used, for reference (like an idref) why not ditch the name/to then and realy use an ID and idref? the xsd standard can make sure these constraints are automatically met (a refid should point to an existing id, id's should be unique etc..etc..etc..ebBP uses this) Sorry if I sound a little frustrated (two STFF posts in 10 minutes) but I do mean what I say in 4.0, i might consider want to switch to id and schema idref stuff. but that would become backwards incompatible... and needs a conversion utility. if the schema idref can be added to point to the name attribute, we could add it in our current schema (although we have to see how this works with superstates) View the original post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=viewtopic&p=4008213#... Reply to the post : http://www.jboss.com/index.html?module=bb&op=posting&mode=reply&a...