1018 2005-01-20 20:09:05 +0000 Information model - Section 2.3.2, 2nd last paragraph 2005-08-03 15:43:06 +0000 1 1 1 Unclassified WS Choreography Last Call Comment: Confirmed Closed unspecified PC Linux CLOSED FIXED http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Jan/0022.html P2 normal -- 1019 1020 1021 1022 1 gritzinger martin.chapman martin.chapman oldest_to_newest 2837 0 gritzinger 2005-01-20 20:09:05 +0000 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. 2883 1 martin.chapman 2005-01-25 20:31:05 +0000 Editorial: consider a footnote in document to say it is a notational choice 4174 2 martin.chapman 2005-02-14 20:56:05 +0000 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. 4176 3 martin.chapman 2005-02-14 20:58:33 +0000 *** Bug 1019 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** 3734 4 gritzinger 2005-04-12 20:31:05 +0000 RESOLVED FIXED, MINUTES 2005-04-12 3431 5 martin.chapman 2005-05-10 15:29:23 +0000 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 3063 6 gritzinger 2005-05-25 20:39:41 +0000 <role type="qname" behavior="list of ncname"? /> to: <roleType typeRef="qname" behavior="list of ncname"? /> 2957 7 gritzinger 2005-05-27 19:08:36 +0000 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 5353 8 martin.chapman 2005-08-03 15:43:06 +0000 Yin-Leng has confirmed this resolution is ok: http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-ws-chor-comments/2005Aug/0018.html