Re: [xtm-wg] Nikita's comments

[Lars Marius Garshol <larsga@garshol.priv.no>]

* Nikita Ogievetsky
| 
| You are right, F.3.3 is dangerous.
|
| It allows processing software to "unite" members with the same role
| even if they have -id- on them and may be are reified somewhere else
| in the document.
 
You are quite right about this.  It is one of the issues with the
current association structure that we came across when implementing
this.  It is of course possible to retain the ID, but if you do so you
lose the information about which of the players the ID originally
applied to.

There is a trade-off here, however, since to allow associations in
in-memory structures to contain multiple 'member' objects with the
same role is awkward for applications.

I see three alternatives:

 - leave the spec as it is, gain ease of use, but allow applications
   to shoot themselves in the foot in some rare cases

 - take F.3.3 out and lose ease of use, but make XTM safer

 - take F.3.3 out, but insert a statement to the effect that it is a
   reportable error for two members in the same association to have
   the same role.  

   This loses the possibility of reifying individual players when
   there are more that have the same role, unless reifying the
   <topicRef> element could be said to have effect of reifying the
   topic's involvement in the association. My view is that that would
   work.  

Provided that I am right about the semantics of reifying <topicRef>
elements I would prefer the last alternative here.

--Lars M.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
eGroups is now Yahoo! Groups
Click here for more details
http://click.egroups.com/1/11231/0/_/337252/_/981715391/
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

To Post a message, send it to:   xtm-wg@eGroups.com

To Unsubscribe, send a blank message to: xtm-wg-unsubscribe@eGroups.com