Re: Should we alter "payeeParty" and "payAmount" to instead reference "compensation"?

On 27 Sep 2014, at 04:00, Myles, Stuart <SMyles@ap.org> wrote:

> I see that we have deprecated “pay” (as one of the possible duty actions) and have introduced “compensate”. However, we still have payeeParty as a Party Function and payAmount as a constraint name. So, do we want to alter these to match the switch from “pay” to “compensate”?
>  
> Perhaps “compensatedParty” and “compensationAmount”? (Or just “compensation” since the units of compensation might not be numeric, I imagine?)

I think it makes sense to change payeeParty now that we use "compensate" as the duty action and "compensatedParty" sounds consistent.

A related question....should we also have the "compensator" Party (in cases where another party, not the assignee is doing the "payment") ?

The constraint "payAmount" is ok as it implies a more specific "financial payment amount" as a narrower form of compensation.
(You can also imagine another constraints, such as as "frequentFlyerPoints")

Cheers...
Renato Iannella
Semantic Identity
http://semanticidentity.com
Mobile: +61 4 1313 2206