W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-ws-chor@w3.org > May 2004

RE: TWIST example

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>
Message-ID: <000c01c44495$b8bc71b0$6401a8c0@corp.choreology.com>

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  &

-----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 


Steve T
Received on Friday, 28 May 2004 05:26:06 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.4.0 : Friday, 17 January 2020 19:30:24 UTC