Re: [xtm-wg] A challenge on "the graph"

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

* Sam Hunting
| 
| Personally, I'm leaning toward groves, since (a) property sets have
| angle brackets, therefore I understand them, (b) property sets are
| simple and elegant (unlike -- no flames please! -- UML, at least in my
| experience), (c) groves do describe graphs, 

They describe nodes with properties, just like the infoset approach.
I'm not saying you're wrong, because you're not, but...

| and (d) groves seem to meet the node/property desire voiced by some
| implementors.

Groves meet all my desires. My only concern with them is that hardly
anyone knows them. I guess, however, that that can be worked around by
adding prose explanations in the specification. It's not optimal, but
then none of the other choices are either.
 
| P.S. There's no reason why documentation of a grove-based graph
| shouldn't read as appealingly as the Infoset, 

Heh! This is what I tried to say above. So we actually agree on
something! That's new. :-)

--Lars M.


------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor ---------------------~-~>
Do you have 128-bit SSL encryption server security?
Get VeriSign's FREE Guide, "Securing Your
Web Site for Business." Get it now!
http://us.click.yahoo.com/EVNB7A/c.WCAA/bT0EAA/2n6YlB/TM
---------------------------------------------------------------------_->

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

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

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/