- From: Tony Fletcher <tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com>
- Date: Fri, 28 May 2004 10:25:30 +0100
- To: "'WS-Choreography List'" <public-ws-chor@w3.org>
Dear Steve, This may be of at tangent to the thrust of your query, but my only quibble with what you say is the word 'the'. Yes if we called it SellerConsolidatorRole, then it makes some (naming) sense to call the relationship of this role with the BuyerRole the BuyerSellerConsolidator relationship (this form of language would work well in German!)- but whether it is *the* key role depends on whose viewpoint you take, does n't it? In short, yes do it! Best Regards Tony A M Fletcher Home: 35, Wimborne Avenue, IPSWICH IP3 8QW Tel: +44 (0) 1473 729537 Mobile: +44 (0) 7801 948219 amfletcher@iee.org (also tony.fletcher@talk21.com & tony_fletcher@btopenworld.com) -----Original Message----- From: public-ws-chor-request@w3.org [mailto:public-ws-chor-request@w3.org] On Behalf Of Steve Ross-Talbot Sent: 27 May 2004 19:15 To: WS-Choreography List Subject: TWIST example Quick question for you members that are up to speed on the TWIST use case. In the example we did at the F2F we decided to have a SellerConsolidatorRole as opposed to just a SellerRole which the Trading System plays. Is the key relationship then a BuyerSellerConsolidator that links Buyer with the Trading System playing the SellerConsolidatorRole? If so we omitted it from the example. Could you let me know what you folks think and I shall code it up. Cheers Steve T
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 05:26:06 UTC