W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-sml@w3.org > October 2007

[w3c sml] Bug 4639 (Action 136) updated cycle proposal document

From: Smith, Virginia (HP Software) <virginia.smith@hp.com>
Date: Thu, 25 Oct 2007 22:11:56 -0000
Message-ID: <4ED4BEA3C04CAF4C8F9BEE10116D2E3003554F69@G3W0067.americas.hpqcorp.net>
To: <public-sml@w3.org>
Attached is the updated cycle proposal. Let me start by saying that this
problem is hard and my impression is that we could really screw this up
if we don't give this some serious thought.

After spending a lot of time thinking through these new proposals, it
seems crazy to me (maybe it's just my headache) that a schema author
will intentionally create cycles (acyclic or not!) that consist of
completely different types of nodes connected by completely different
types of links. Anyone know of a good use case for that?

Perhaps we are trying to allow for every possible cycle a person can
dream up and I'm not sure that is productive.

The only thing that is changed is section 3. The 2 new proposals from
the f2f have been added with some thoughts. 

--
ginny


Received on Thursday, 25 October 2007 22:12:53 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 20:56:07 UTC