OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

xdi message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: Re: [xdi] one thought about multiplicity.


Just updated the proposal accordingly:
https://wiki.oasis-open.org/xdi/XdiMultiplicity

Markus

On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 11:25 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:
Thanks Markus. I am leaning in that same direction, for the same reasons, even though it is a few more characters and (IMHO) a little harder to read. Consistency and ease-of-development trumphs.

So: if anyone else disagrees, please speak up. Otherwise we will made that one small modification to the Multiplicity proposal and then move it to become final.

=Drummond 


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 7:04 AM, Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org> wrote:
I definitely prefer option 2, since it is consistent with the attribute singleton pattern and also results in cleaner code.

During yesterday's XDI2 call, I also came across this question when working on dictionary examples with Mark Horstmeier, and my sense was that it made sense to him as well.

Markus


On Wed, Sep 12, 2012 at 12:14 PM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:
Markus,

Since no one else has replied to this thread, and everyone has had a week to think about it, what's your final recommendation, i.e., for an attribute singleton in the context of a collection, do you think we should use:
  1. +tel$!3
  2. +tel$!(!3)
How about others? Does anyone else have strong feelings about this?

I'd like to finalize this decision and then proceed with approval of the Multiplicity syntax proposal as a number of other proposals are waiting on it.

Thanks,

=Drummond  

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:53 AM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:
Markus, yes, I agree on both your points below, which is why I am leaning in favor of your proposal.

I invite anyone else on the TC to weigh in as to whether they agree or disagree with Markus' proposal. I'd like to conclude on this no later than the next call.

Thanks,

=Drummond  

On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 12:33 AM, Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org> wrote:
Oops yes, I got it backwards in the message. Thanks for fixing.
On the discussion page I think I got it right.

Regarding the cons you are listing, yes it requires more characters, but I actually don't think it's harder to read if you consider the entirety of multiplicity syntax.

Because with the proposed change, you can easily recognize all entities as looking like $(....), and you can easily recognize all attributes as looking like $!(....)

Markus


On Sat, Sep 1, 2012 at 5:58 AM, Drummond Reed <drummond.reed@xdi.org> wrote:
On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 3:02 PM, Markus Sabadello <markus.sabadello@xdi.org> wrote:
While doing some implementation work I had a quick thought about the XdiMultiplicity page.

Basically I am thinking that attribute members of a collection should have this syntax:
+tel$!1

rather than this:
+tel$!(!1)

This would be more consistent with the attribute singleton syntax, i.e.
$!(+tel)

See the discussion page of the proposal for details.

Markus

Markus, I think your message came out backwards, i.e.:
  • Current multiplicity proposal is that:
    • Attribute singletons NOT within a collection have this syntax: $!(+tel)
    • Attribute singletons within a collection have this syntax: +tel$!1
  • Your proposal is:
    • Attribute singletons NOT within a collection have this syntax: $!(+tel)
    • Attribute singletons within a collection have this syntax: +tel$!(!1)
I think the rationale for your proposal can be stated this way:

PROS
  • There is a consistency that all attribute singletons (whether inside or outside a collection) follow the pattern $!(xri) where xri is:
    • An i-number when the attribute singleton is a member of a collecton
    • A +word or $word if the attribute singleton is not a member of a collection
  • Code written to enforce this pattern could be easier/cleaner
CONS
  • It adds a minimum of three additional characters for every attribute singleton within a collection
  • It is more complex to read
I honestly could go either way on this one, but I would err on the side of the developer view, i.e., if developers will find easier to use a consistent pattern for all attribute singletons including the cross-reference, then I think it would be worth it despite the extra characters and decreased readability.

What do others think?

=Drummond  


















[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]