OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

bt-spec message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Subject: RE: [bt-spec] Issue 60: address-as-role or role address


Since this is pretty much a binary choice, and recent discussion was on both sides, I've put in a proposed solution that isn't a single choice
 
Choose either A or B

A: Use the form "address-as-<role>" consistently throughout the text including the XML.

B: Use the form "<role>-address" consistently throughout the text including the XML.

which will mean that we can't have a "white ballot", "nem con" whatever on this one.

Peter

 

 
 -----Original Message-----
From: Tony Fletcher [mailto:tony.fletcher@choreology.com]
Sent: 13 February 2002 15:27
To: BT - spec
Subject: [bt-spec] Issue 60: address-as-role or role address

Dear Colleagues,
 

Issue 60: address-as-role or role address

Status: open (22 Nov 2001)
Date added: 19 Nov 2001
Category: minor technical
Submitter: Peter Furniss, Choreology
Description:
The abstract message descriptions call the address parameters "address-as-superior", "address-as-inferior", "address-as-decider", intending to be clear that these are addresses the actor in question offers for that role (i.e. as the target of particular future messages), given that the actor may also offer other addresses for that role (or indeed the same address, but for a different role)

The xml constructs call these "superior address" etc., which is shorter, and perhaps more message-oriented. (a PREPARE for example travels from the Superior (for this relationship) to the address-as-inferior of the Inferior of the relationship.

The names should be aligned or the difference justified in the text.

Peter wrote:
 
The "address-as" form is clearer for description.
 
Suggestion:
Align them as address-as-whatever, changing the XML appropriately. 
 
Mark (Little) wrote:
 
The "address-as" form is clearer for description.
I'm not sure that this is the case actually. If we were to vote on this then I'd prefer "X address" rather than "address-as-X".
 
Suggestion:
Align them as address-as-whatever, changing the XML appropriately. 
 
Whatever we do, we definitely need to be consistent.
 
Tony's thoughts:
Only an editorial convention s does not really matter.  However, given that a single 'thing' can play several different roles and each role is defined to a have a logically distinct address, the 'address-as-role' perhaps conveys this idea better in English.  (Note:  I understand that a logical address may map to a set of physical addresses and that the sets of physical addresses for different roles of the same 'thing' may, or may not, be different.) 
 
 
Proposed solution:
Use the form "address-as-<role>" consistently throughout the text including the XML.
 
 
Best Regards     Tony
A M Fletcher
Choreology Ltd., 13 Austin Friars, London EC2N 2JX     UK
Tel: +44 (0) 20 76701787         Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219
tony.fletcher@choreology.com     (Home: amfletcher@iee.org)
 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [Elist Home]


Powered by eList eXpress LLC