This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.
Section 2.3.2, 2nd last paragraph. Information model <role type="qname" behavior="list of ncname"? /> Why is the Role Type of relationshipType defined differently from <roleType> of section 2.3.1? It seems cleaner and more consistent for the Role Type of relationshipType to be defined similarly to <roleType> of section 2.3.1. All the text around the <role> element talks about "Role Type" anyway.
Editorial: consider a footnote in document to say it is a notational choice
From meeting on 25-jan-05: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jan/att-0010/2005-01- 25_WS-Chor_Notes.txt Leave open for present and consider adding a note in the document saying it is a notational choice.
*** Bug 1019 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
RESOLVED FIXED, MINUTES 2005-04-12
Yin-Leng has been informed of the group's decision [1] and we are awaiting confirmation. Category changed to LCC: Closed. [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor- comments/2005May/0011.html
<role type="qname" behavior="list of ncname"? /> to: <roleType typeRef="qname" behavior="list of ncname"? />
Removed mention of role (and relationship) and replaced with roleType except in introduction, 2.4 last para., 2.4.2, 2.4.3, 2.4.5, 2.4.6,2.4.10, 2.5, 2.5.2, 2.5.2.1, 2.5.2.3, 2.5.4 In interaction changed toRole fromRole to toRoleTypeRef fromRoleTypeRef (refer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Apr/0043.html ) Changed "fromRoleRecordReference" and "toRoleRecordReference" to "fromRoleTypeRecordRef" and "toRoleTypeRecordRef" (refer http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005May/0001.html
Yin-Leng has confirmed this resolution is ok: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Aug/0018.html