1002 2005-01-10 16:01:46 +0000 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RELATIONSHIP TYPES 2005-05-10 15:01:52 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS Choreography Last Call Comment: Confirmed Closed unspecified PC Windows 2000 CLOSED WONTFIX http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jan/0005.html P2 normal -- 1 martin.chapman martin.chapman martin.chapman oldest_to_newest 2812 0 martin.chapman 2005-01-10 16:01:46 +0000 There is no contraints indicating how relationships in enclosed and enclosing choreographies are related - should there atleast be a constraint that the two choreographies must share atleast one common relationship type? Regards Gary and Steve 4162 1 martin.chapman 2005-02-14 20:36:47 +0000 From meeting on 11-jan-05 http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Member/member-ws-chor/2005Jan/att-0002/2005-01- 11_WS-Chor_Notes.txt: Discussion deferred as deemed to be a technical issue. 3929 2 gritzinger 2005-03-22 19:03:51 +0000 Proposal from Gary Brown: Although I have asked Kohei for clarification on this, I actually think the text in the issue is pretty clear: http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=1102. "Cannot see why finalizer blocks etc. should not combine in them corresponding workunits --- the latter seem rather redundant in semantics (and examples). As far as I read, no repetition etc. seems possible in these blocks." He is saying why is only a workunit permitted inside a finalizerBlock? I can see no valid reason for this restriction, so I propose that we change this to be an 'activity'. The only changes I can see are in section 2.4.5: 1) Syntax to change from <finalizerBlock name="ncname" > WorkUnit-Notation </finalizerBlock> to <finalizerBlock name="ncname" > Activity-Notation </finalizerBlock> 2) Last paragraph in that section - suggested change would be to remove the sentence that talks about the workunit. 3) Obviously the schema would need to be updated The examples in 2.4.10 could be updated, but they are still valid using workunits. Regards Gary 3930 3 gritzinger 2005-03-22 19:04:45 +0000 URL for previous comment: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor/2005Mar/0035.html 3856 4 gritzinger 2005-03-29 20:34:55 +0000 Comments #2 and #3 DO NOT apply to this bug. They apply to bug 1102. 3857 5 gritzinger 2005-03-29 20:57:08 +0000 Discussed on March 29, 2005 conference call. 3427 6 martin.chapman 2005-05-10 14:47:56 +0000 Steveand Gary have 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/0008.html 3428 7 martin.chapman 2005-05-10 14:59:38 +0000 Steveand Gary have 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/0008.html 3429 8 martin.chapman 2005-05-10 15:01:52 +0000 Issue raiser has confirmed the resolution: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005May/0009.html