Re: Options for BP Spec Schema issue (#76) regarding ID and IDREFs

[James Bryce Clark <jbc@lawyer.com>]

<Karsten>
>Chris Ferris, who was the originator of issue #76[,] *** understands 
>our scope/uniqueness concern and accepts that we cannot use
>exclusively ID/IDREF, because we want to use same role names 
>multiple places. 
* * * 
>but since path to "Role" varies, it would be easier if we also had ID.
</Karsten>

Others of us also independently discussed ID- or IDREF-ing AuthorizedRole
this morning, after Kurt's great "option 5" idea.  I think it's great.
Production of the role strings, and defining the space over which they need
to be unique, is a pain in the rear;  this would help.    Also, frankly, I
think it's training wheels that we will eventually lose, and some may not
want, so I think it should be optional (each role takes 0,1 IDs).

<Karsten>
> Somewhat related, we discussed that the "Role" in a
> BusinessTransactionActivity would be sufficient to identify "action" 
> in the over-ride element of a CPP Service-Binding.
</Karsten>

Let's discuss that part more on Tuesday, before making any changes.  

Jamie