[sc34wg3] role vs. role type

[Patrick Durusau]

Greetings!

Working my way through the RM draft and ran across what seems to be 
either simply odd or confusing usage of role vs. role type. (Remember I 
am learning ISO speak as a second language so this may just be 
unfamiliarity with standards writing.)

For example:

> [parid0914] The term "casting" is consistent with the theatrical 
> metaphor invoked by the term "role player". In an assertion, the role 
> players are like the actors in a stage play. Each c-node represents 
> the "casting" of an actor (a role player) in a specific role (a role 
> type) in a specific stage production (a specific assertion), which may 
> or may not be a production of a specific stage play (a specific 
> assertion type).


What I am not seeing is why the term "role" is being renamed as "role 
type?" Isn't it simpler to just say:

***Suggested revision***
Each c-node represents the "casting" of an actor (a role player) in a 
specific role in a specific stage production (a specific assertion), 
which may or may not be a production of a specific stage play (a 
specific assertion type).
***/Suggested revision**

The usage runs through the draft, but consider another example:

> [parid0489] Each assertion represents (asserts the existence of) a 
> single strongly-typed relationship among the subjects that are its 
> "role players". Each role player is a subject that plays a specific 
> role in the relationship. The roles ("role types") themselves are 
> subjects, and so is the type of relationship of which the relationship 
> is an instance. 


Of which I would revise the last sentence to read:

***Suggested revision***
The roles themselves are subjects, and so is the type of relationship of 
which the relationship is an instance.
***/Suggested revision***

The portion of the text that caused me to raise this question was in the 
now infamous "George" example, the line in question reading:

parid0467 (reads in part)

> It is a relationship between George and Harvard in which Harvard plays 
> the role of a degree-conferring institution (the "institution" role 
> type), and George plays the role of the person upon whom the degree is 
> conferred (the "MD degree holder" role type).


If I were reporting this example in normal speech I would say:

"It is a relationship between George and Harvard in which Harvard plays 
the role of a degree-conferring institution (the "institution" role), 
and George plays the role of the person upon whom the degree is 
conferred (the "MD degree holder" role)."

I found any number of similar examples but the most telling, IMHO, is 
the following:

> [parid0157] No multiple role players of a single role type
>
> [parid0158] In any given assertion, each role type is either played by 
> a single subject, represented by a single node, or the role type is 
> "unplayed", i.e., the role type has no role player. Multiple subjects 
> cannot play the same role in the same assertion. 


It seems clear to me that what is intended is parid0157 No multiple role 
players of a single role" and parid0158 "In any given assertion, each 
role is either played by a single subject, represented by a single node, 
or the role is "unplayed",...

I started to compile a list of these usages with suggested corrections 
but it seems systematic enough to be something I could be missing.

Is there some reason to say "role type" when "role" appears to serve 
just as well?

Thanks!

Patrick

-- 
Patrick Durusau
Director of Research and Development
Society of Biblical Literature
pdurusau@emory.edu
Co-Editor, ISO Reference Model for Topic Maps