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

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

From: Dan Connolly <connolly@w3.org>
Date: Mon, 21 May 2007 18:59:57 -0500
To: David Orchard <dorchard@bea.com>
Cc: www-tag@w3.org
Message-Id: <1179791997.15441.167.camel@pav.dm93.org>

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.

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

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?

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.


| 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.


| 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.


What does it mean for information I1 to be compatible with I2?

[... at this point, dinner time arrived...]


-- 
Dan Connolly, W3C http://www.w3.org/People/Connolly/
Received on Tuesday, 22 May 2007 00:00:02 GMT

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.2.0+W3C-0.50 : Thursday, 26 April 2012 12:47:45 GMT