Re: [tag] Reservations about basing 'testAssertion' and 'shared' on common type

[Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>]

Maybe variables would be more appropriate in
the 'overrides' container because it is clear that
it can only have one value within the set. But
maybe there is a case for also declaring variables,
etc, such that they are overridden by the lowest
level value - for the sake of this example called
'overriden'

e.g.

 <testAssertionSet>
  <header>
   <tag...
   <overrides>
     <variable name="abc">...</variable>
     <target>...</target>
     <predicate>...</predicate>
   </overrides>
   <overriden>
     <variable name="xyz">...</variable>
   </overriden>
   <composites>
     <prerequisite>...</prereqisite>
   </composites>
  <header>
  ...

 </testAssertionSet>



---
Stephen D Green




2009/8/27 Stephen Green <stephengreenubl@gmail.com>:
> We could have two sets of shared elements which could each be a subsection
> of the TA Set header: one set called 'overrides' and the other called
> 'composites'
> It might be different parts which are included in these containers, e.g.
>
> <testAssertionSet>
>  <header>
>   <variable...
>   <tag...
>   <overrides>
>     <target>...</target>
>     <predicate>...</predicate>
>   </overrides>
>   <composites>
>      <prerequisite>...</prereqisite>
>   </composites>
>  <header>
>  ...
>
> </testAssertionSet>
>
> It might be feasile for some TA parts to appear in both 'overrides'
> and 'composites'.
>
> ---
> Stephen D Green
>
>
>
>
> 2009/8/27 Jacques R. Durand <JDurand@us.fujitsu.com>:
>>  I have no strong opinion here...
>> Also we have not yet resolved the "sharing modes":
>> - some [shared] values are directly inherited by individual Tas, which
>> may override them.
>> - some [shared] values are directly inherited by individual Tas, which
>> may only "add" to these in a form of composition, e.g. an individual
>> Prerequisite element in a TA would not override, but compose (AND) with
>> it.
>> So we might have to add a @mode of sharing for each element of the
>> <shared>, one more reason I see to keep <shared> defined differently in
>> the schema ?
>>
>> Jacques
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Stephen Green [mailto:stephengreenubl@gmail.com]
>> Sent: Monday, August 24, 2009 12:04 PM
>> To: TAG TC
>> Subject: [tag] Reservations about basing 'testAssertion' and 'shared' on
>> common type
>>
>> I have some reservations about using a common type in the markup to make
>> 'testAssertion' and 'shared' derive from the same type (at least for
>> those elements they have in common).
>> A major argument in favour of the common type is to reduce redundancy.
>> The argument against it which concerns me is that this introduces a weak
>> feature when W3C XML Schema derivation (extension) is used. It adds
>> complexity and may be a cause for concern if we ever wanted to further
>> extend the types in another version. In principle there is no problem
>> with using extension; it's just a concern when this is done with W3C XML
>> Schema (as in TAML version 0.3). My opinion is that if we continue to
>> use W3C XML Schema to define TAML we are better trying to avoid
>> derivation more than we try to avoid redundancy.
>> ---
>> Stephen D Green
>>
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
>> generates this mail.  Follow this link to all your TCs in OASIS at:
>> https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
>>
>>
>