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 2.3.4, 2nd last paragraph, 1st sentence. Question on constraint "If two or more Channel Types SHOULD point to Role Types that MUST be implemented by the same logical entity or organization, then the specified Role Types MUST belong to the same Participant Type." This restriction means that if channel type is present in an organization, then only one participant type is allowed. What is the reason for this restriction? It would be reasonable to expect an organization to be more than one Participant Type.
requires discussion
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 Requires technical discussion.
Discussed at the feb/march 05 F2F: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Mar/att- 0001/Ws_Chor_f2f__Feb-Mar_2005_-0.txt < The restriction is valid because it makes no sense to have an organisation play two participants. This does not mean an organisation cannot have two participants in reality it just means that they are siloed. That is they are separate and not logically connected. So this delineates responsibilities within the logical participants in a CDL description. Therefore by definition it is correct and not further action is required to resolve this issue. There is no way, by definition, that a channel at one participant can point to the same thing in another. They cannot be the same channel because they are physically separate entities. Agreed that issue is therefore RESOLVED WON'T FIX. <scribe> ACTION: Add text in primer or spec to clarify above. [recorded in http://www.w3.org/2005/02/28-ws-chor-irc]
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/0013.html
Added to primer now that it is CLOSED - SRT QA contact changed from Martin to Steve (as primer main author)
Yin-Leng has confirmed the resolution is acceptable: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Aug/0020.html