I think the real challenge with these repeating tasks or intervals is to capture any significant variation in confidence, commitment, compensation, etc. With independent agreements issued in a stream, both parties can decide how early or how late they want to "book" resources or commit to other details. With a single agreement that encodes repetition, you risk watering down the meaning of the agreement, e.g. the provider accepts but essentially ignores all the expanding instances beyond a near planning horizon, or the consumer didn't really know what they want and will end up canceling or otherwise revising the series description many times. Many of us already see this just with human calendars. Some people abuse "repeating" meeting schedules and block out lots of time with standing meetings which they end up canceling. Others avoid this by issuing individual requests for each meeting, but then they wait too long to try to book the "N+1th" meeting, and everyone is already booked with conflicting commitments! You really need some carefully prioritized dialog to expand out and "pencil in" different future goals and converge on a coordinated schedule that satisfies the group priorities. Otherwise, everything churns and you fall back to immediate, greedy scheduling with lots of waste. My gut feeling is that formalizing the repeating patterns is not going to make any difference in solving this problem. It could be useful to delegate complex planning to a single planner, but eventually the real coordinated negotiation will be in the form of many smaller "execution atoms", each of which can be negotiated or canceled as a seperate agreement or sub-agreement. karl -- Karl Czajkowski karlcz@bbswl.com