[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]

Re: Relationship types



Len Bullard writes:
[Jon]
   > Is it possible to agree on a basic list of such types?

   No unless you intend as HTML did, to define an application 
   language.

   > Is it useful to agree on a basic list of such types?

   Utility is a characteristic of the domain of the requirements.

Not only useful but essential, if we are to avoid the HTML LINK
problem (thinly documented early on, and so unimplemented until late).

Can we avoid the phrase "basic list" because that implies a degree of
universality which may not be present. "Sample list" or "example list"
perhaps?

///Peter


References: