This is an archived snapshot of W3C's public bugzilla bug tracker, decommissioned in April 2019. Please see the home page for more details.

Bug 661 - Adding partnerType and roleType to the language model
Summary: Adding partnerType and roleType to the language model
Status: RESOLVED WONTFIX
Alias: None
Product: WS Choreography
Classification: Unclassified
Component: Spec: Naming and terminology (show other bugs)
Version: unspecified
Hardware: Other other
: P2 normal
Target Milestone: --
Assignee: Greg Ritzinger
QA Contact:
URL: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/p...
Whiteboard:
Keywords:
Depends on:
Blocks:
 
Reported: 2004-04-13 09:41 UTC by Greg Ritzinger
Modified: 2004-12-01 17:16 UTC (History)
0 users

See Also:


Attachments

Description Greg Ritzinger 2004-04-13 09:41:53 UTC
Back in February (16 Feb 04) I made a contribution to the group that had two 
main parts (http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-
chor/2004Feb/0024.html). 
 
The first part suggested adding partnerType and roleType to the language model 
and hence to the language.  Maybe this has been discussed at a meeting when I 
was not present, but I have not been notified of any discussion or proposed 
resolution.  I would hope to see these two elements added to the language or 
else good reason given why this is not appropriate (which may well be the 
case).  So I would like this to be added to the list of issues, or a pointer 
provided to the resolution and rationale
Comment 1 Martin Chapman 2004-08-24 16:18:29 UTC
resolved at the July 04 f2f - partner becomes participanttype and role becomes 
roletype.
Comment 2 Greg Ritzinger 2004-10-28 15:06:44 UTC
We currently seem to have 'fallen between the stools' with regard to
participantType and roleType with a participantType being defined as consisting
of one or more roles (not roleTypes) - section 2.3.2.  My original idea was to
define participantType(s) as consisting of one or more roleTypes, and to define
roleTypes as they currently are, but then to instantiate / specialise
participants from the participantTypes.  Participants would consist of specific
roles (which would be of a roleType).  Thus you could specify a generic
distributor participantType (perhaps having 3 'standardised' roleTypes of
'talkToBuyer', 'talkToSupplier' and 'talkToShipper') and then make specific
participants DistributorA, Walmartdistribution, or, if we support instances
distributor[N]. 
   
 If the idea of having participantTypes and then having 'instances' of those
types is now considered a step to far for version 1 CDL then I suggest that we
go with participant and role and be very careful with the use of the word "type"
in the sentences that contain these words. 
   
 When the group decides on the principles here I will offer to propose precise
text changes. 
 
Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher