I attach the beginning of a set of diagrams of all the pieces we've
established we want in pipelines, with aspects that need markup
identified in a neutral way.
I hope this can be useful in comparing alternative approaches to
naming.
For example, in her recent emails Jeni has proposed the following:
C (?/) <component name="...">(input*,param*,output*)
C1 (component/) <input name="..." sequence="yes|no"/>
C2 (component/) <output name="..." sequence="yes|no"/>
C3 (component/) <param name="..." required="yes|no"/> [oops, missing
from diagram]
S (pipeline(/group|...)/) <step kind="..." name="...">(pipe*,param*)
S1 (step/) <pipe from="_stepname_/_outputname_" to="_inputname_"/>
S2 (step/) <param name="..." value="..."/> [oops, missing
from diagram]
P (/ | ?) <pipeline name="...">(input*,(step|...)*,output*)
P1 (pipeline/) <input [not sure what's allowed here]/>
P2 (pipeline/) <output name="..." sequence="yes|no">
<pipe from="_stepname_/_outputname_"/>
</output>
ht
--
Henry S. Thompson, HCRC Language Technology Group, University of Edinburgh
Half-time member of W3C Team
2 Buccleuch Place, Edinburgh EH8 9LW, SCOTLAND -- (44) 131 650-4440
Fax: (44) 131 650-4587, e-mail: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk
URL: http://www.ltg.ed.ac.uk/~ht/
[mail really from me _always_ has this .sig -- mail without it is forged spam]
