W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org > August 2006

(partial) foundation for naming discussion

From: Henry S. Thompson <ht@inf.ed.ac.uk>
Date: Thu, 17 Aug 2006 16:06:45 +0100
To: public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
Message-ID: <f5bmza3e70a.fsf@erasmus.inf.ed.ac.uk>
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

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_"/>


 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]

pipeline foundation diagram
(image/png attachment: ports.png)

Received on Thursday, 17 August 2006 15:06:59 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Tuesday, 6 January 2015 21:32:40 UTC