Re: [clue] Participant info/type followup

["Duckworth, Mark" <[e-mail]>]

> -----Original Message-----
> From: clue [mailto:[e-mail]] On Behalf Of Paul Kyzivat
> Sent: Thursday, April 03, 2014 11:30 AM
> To: [e-mail]
> Subject: Re: [clue] Participant info/type followup
> 
> ISTM we have both a semantic issue and a syntactic/terminological issue:
> 
> - we have the semantic distinction between who is represented within
>    the capture and who is responsible for sending the capture

[Duckworth, Mark] I agree, but I thought the intent of the participant attributes was to give information about "who is represented within the capture" and not about "who is responsible for sending the capture".  From the framework:

    "... information regarding the conference participants *in* a Capture."
    "... indicates the type of participant/s contained *in* the capture..."

[Duckworth, Mark] I think we don't need to add a way to indicate "who is responsible for sending the capture".  IIRC, this was not a goal of the original proposal and discussion about "roles".  But if the group agrees we should add this now, I wouldn't object too strongly.

> - we have a terminology issue regarding what to call these two things
> 
> I think we now agree that the semantic distinction is real and should be
> identified in the advertisement.

[Duckworth, Mark] I'm mildly against adding the ability to describe "who is responsible for sending the capture".

> Regarding terminology, IMO we should use two different terms to identify
> these. At most one of them should be called "participant". Given the conflict
> with xcon, perhaps *neither* of them should be called participant.
> 
> This is mostly a data model issue. Some of it might need to peek through into
> the framework. And what does should be consistent.
> 
> 	Thanks,
> 	Paul
> 
> On 4/1/14 7:13 PM, Christian Groves wrote:
> > Hello Roberta,
> >
> >  From a data model perspective I agree that it makes sense to have the
> > participant metadata "referenced" to minimize duplication in the
> > messages. So I support your solution in the data model to the
> > redundancy problem.

[Duckworth, Mark] I agree too.

> > In general I think its good to maintain consistency between the
> > framework and the data model. However in London I thought this was
> > more of a syntax shortcut (like the captureID wildcarding) rather than
> > something we'd need to formalize in the framework. I guess we could
> > add it at a higher level in the framework (it would functionally be
> > the same thing), it would just be more work for the editor...
> >
> > I could go either way on this.
> >
> > Regards, Christian
snip