Re: [bt-spec] BTP Issue 62 : Names of the relationships

[Sazi Temel <sazi.temel@bea.com>]

Do you think it may help to clarify if we use the concrete relationship
names between the actors (or roles) such as Composer:Coordinator,
Coordinator:Participant etc. I do not think there are too many of them.
Then the more generic relationship such as inferior:superior or
terminator:decider may be clearer. Perhaps we need a small section in the
doc that explains these generic and more specific 
relationships.

--Sazi

At 04:35 PM 11/19/01 +0000, BTP issues maintainer wrote:

This issue has been added to the BTP issue list

BTP Issue 62 : Names of the relationships

Category: minor technical
Submitter: Alastair Green, Choreology
Description:
The two distinct relationships in BTP are called "Superior:Inferior" and "Terminator:Decider" in 0.9. These names are cumbersome, and in the latter case, not very accurate - the client-end application to coordination-facility relationship includes Initiator:Factory. Simple names would clarify.

The names "Control" relationship and "Outcome" relationship are suggested.

---

To comment on this issue, please follow-up to this announcement on the bt-spec@lists.oasis-open.org (replying to this message should automatically send your message to that list).

The current draft, with line numbers is available in pdf format and word format.

To add a new issue, please email to Peter Furniss peter.furniss@choreology.com. It helps if you propose a category (technical, minor technical, editorial, minor editorial).

---

Sazi Temel
Principal Consultant,
eCommerce Services, bea Systems, inc. [www.bea.com]

---