W3C home > Mailing lists > Public > www-tag@w3.org > July 2007

RE: versioning definitions... [was: TAG minutes ...XMLVersioning-41 ]

From: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Date: Wed, 4 Jul 2007 10:36:13 -0700
Message-ID: <BEBB9CBE66B372469E93FFDE3EDC493E5152B5@repbex01.amer.bea.com>
To: "Dan Connolly" <connolly@w3.org>
Cc: <www-tag@w3.org>


I have incorporated your comments into the doc.  I've got a few response
so I'll just inline all of them. 

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Dan Connolly [mailto:connolly@w3.org] 
> Sent: Monday, May 21, 2007 5:00 PM
> To: David Orchard
> Cc: www-tag@w3.org
> Subject: Re: versioning definitions... [was: TAG minutes 
> ...XMLVersioning-41 ]
> On Mon, 2007-05-21 at 15:30 -0500, Dan Connolly wrote:
> > Meanwhile, I was reading too fast. The definitions do seem 
> to have an 
> > example woven into them.
> > 
> > http://www.w3.org/2001/tag/doc/versioning
> > 18 May 2007
> The diagram uses producer as a relationship between Act of 
> Production and Agent, but the text suggests that "producer" 
> is a class:
>   Definition: A producer is an agent that creates text.

True, but we agreed to keep these "classes" as relationships for
simplicity in the diagram.

> The diagram isn't parallel for syntax and semantics of 
> Languages. I'm not sure that will matter...
> The bold term "constraints" doesn't show up in the diagram.


> Do the words "specific, discrete" add anything to the 
> definition of Text?
>   Definition: Text is a specific, discrete sequence of characters

Nope, removed.

> In this bit...
> |The Name Language consists of text set that have 3 terms and 
> specifies  
> |syntactic constraints: that a name consists of a given and a family.
> did you mean 2 terms?

Nope, 3 terms: name, given, family.  I've clarified the text tho.

> The ext-vers-object-prod-cons-v4.png diagram has a "wrt" 
> label between the act and the langauge; the corresponding 
> label in ext-vers-generic-uml-v5.{png,violet} is unlabelled.


> I'm not sure what to make of this defn:
> | Definition: Extensible if the syntax of a language allows 
> information 
> | that is not defined in the current version of the language.
> Is this what you meant?
>   L is extensible iff there are two texts T1 and T2
>   in L's string_set where T1 != T2 but L(T1) = L(T2),
> where
>   L(T) denotes the information assigned to T
>   according to the semantics of L.

Yes.  I think the new definition of compatibility may help.

> | Every language has a Defined Text set, which contains only 
> Texts that 
> | contain the texts explicitly defined by the language constraints.
> Hmm... that's vacuous. Every text is defined by the language 
> constraints.

I don't follow.  Do you mean I should say something like: A language's
Defined Text set is the set of texts that are explicitly defined by the
language constraints?

> | Typically, the Accept Text set contains Texts that are not in the 
> | Defined Text set and do not have a mapping to information.
> That's not the way I remember discussing it. The texts in the 
> accept set are still mapped to information; they're just not 
> mapped to information that's novel w.r.t. what's in the defined set.

This ok? "Typically, the Accept Text set contains Texts that are not in
the Defined Text set.  The Texts that are in the Accept Text set that
are not in the Defined Text set is the Unknown Text set.   The mapping
of the Unknown Text set to a Defined Text for purposes of determining
the Information is specified by the language.  "
> What does it mean for information I1 to be compatible with I2?

Indeed.  All 3 reviewers have asked this key question.  How about "I1 is
compatible with I2 if all of the information in I1 does not replace or
contradict any information in I2."

Received on Wednesday, 4 July 2007 17:37:04 UTC

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.1 : Wednesday, 7 January 2015 15:32:52 UTC