- From: Richard Tobin <richard@inf.ed.ac.uk>
- Date: Thu, 4 May 2006 17:37:53 +0100 (BST)
- To: ht@inf.ed.ac.uk (Henry S. Thompson), public-xml-processing-model-wg <public-xml-processing-model-wg@w3.org>
> Component((String)shortName, > (ImplDependent)functionality, > (Set of String)inputPorts, > (Set of String)outputPorts, > (Set of String)parameters) I think there should be nothing implementation dependant here; the definition of a component should be standard across implementations. > Pipeline((Set of Component)components, > (Set of String)parameters, > (Set of Step)steps, > (Set of Pipes)pipes, > (InputPort)input?, > (OutputPort)output?) In http://www.cogsci.ed.ac.uk/~richard/pipeline.html I did this somewhat differently. Pipelines are a subtype of component, so they have input and output ports just as components do, and there are pipes linking the pipeline inputs to the inputs of contained components. Also, the components field is redundant, since it is just the set of components of the steps, and I don't see the point of putting redundant features in an abstract syntax. -- Richard
Received on Thursday, 4 May 2006 16:38:16 UTC