Re: [xmile] SMILE and XMILE

[Bob Eberlein <bob@astutesd.com>]

Hi Everyone,

My conclusions from this discussion (those related to the original topic 
as the discussion did wander significantly from this).

1. We need to have a name for the computational specification language. 
It is currently SMILE and I would prefer to change that because I find 
it confusing.

2. When we present the language we should do so in a format that maps 
very easily to nested XML tags. I would suggest using labels and 
indentation to accomplish that as in:

Model: WordOfMouth
    Variable: FruitfulContacts
        Equation: AllContacts * FractionSusceptible
        Units: Person/Month

Just to emphasize the above we should really stick to this and not use 
anything like a=b as this gets confusing when writing a specification 
(even though the meaning is obvious).

3. That following the format of first presenting the conceptual format 
then the encoding should be followed for both computational and 
visual/interactive components.

4. That writing up the conceptual computational component should use at 
least part of Magne's suggested structure - probably something like 
Motivation(Pragmatic), Range of what can be 
expressed(Conceptual/Semantic and Syntactic) and Syntax Details 
(Lexical). There will always be a bit of blurring as we present material 
at one level using examples from later levels (can't really talk about 
Range of expression without example equations and so on).

                          Bob Eberlein