Intervals, schedules, and specialization

[William Cox <wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com>]

All --

I've been watching discussion related to expression of various types of schedules.

One set of issues is the factoring work from last week, some of which has been continuing, and seems to have been paying off.

Another area is related to the apparent proliferation of ways of describing schedules. At one point we created an EiInterval, and related goals and requirements were passed on to WS-Calendar who addressed them.

I believe that we do users of the specification a disservice by having multiple ways of expressing similar things, and having varying distances from the standard (and factored) ws-calendar approaches. These standard approaches are used in the emix artifacts that are key payloads, in signal schedules (in conformed approaches that map clearly and cleanly to and from WS-Calendar schedules), and in a variety of other ways.

A reader and user would expect that an interval is an Interval is an EiInterval and be puzzled by the multiplicity and differences.

Cleaning this up, without violence, is a good idea for PR02.

If it cannot be cleaned up then alternative approach(es) should be in an appendix.

So let's stay focused on this and try to quickly narrow down to an agreement.

Thanks!

bill

--
William Cox
Email: wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
Web: http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com
+1 862 485 3696 mobile
+1 908 277 3460 fax