RE: [w3c sml] [4639] Reference cycles - document-based vs. element-based

Exactly! What are we trying to accomplish? If we want to prevent cycles
in models, preventing cycles in documents clearly won't do it. If we
want to prevent cycling documents, preventing cycles in elements equally
clearly won't do it.

If we can decide what we want to prevent, we will probably reach
consensus immediately. Marv

Marvin Waschke
Senior Technology Strategist
Governance & Service Management
Tel:      +1 360 383 9022 
           +1 425 201 3502 x13502
Mobile: +1 425 269 5592
Marvin.Waschke@ca.com
Blog: Iterating on IT Service


-----Original Message-----
From: Lynn, James (HP Software) [mailto:james.lynn@hp.com] 
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 11:27 AM
To: Waschke, Marvin G; Smith, Virginia (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c sml] [4639] Reference cycles - document-based vs.
element-based

It might be helpful if decide what we are trying to accomplish by
restricting cycles. I had assumed the purpose was to prevent cycles in
the model, which would be best implemented using the element imho. Marv
makes a good point, but I think it is a different one, or perhaps it
should be. May I ask that we try to form a consensus on what we are
trying to accomplish?

	1. Prevent cycles in models, e.g. prerequisites, dependencies in
software (patches for example), forwarding schemes, to name a few.
	2. Prevent dependencies in between documents (similar to the
linker analogy) .

Jim

-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Waschke, Marvin G
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 1:16 PM
To: Smith, Virginia (HP Software); public-sml@w3.org
Subject: RE: [w3c sml] [4639] Reference cycles - document-based vs.
element-based


A word in support of document-based cycles to consider. I am not sure
what role this consideration should play in SML, but the stricture is
not as strange as it may seem.

There are situations where identifying document based cycles is useful.
Cycling between documents may not violate logic, but it does diminish
readability and usually indicates a suboptimal design. I am reminded of
the C linker that complained over similar problems with libraries and
made ordering of libraries in makefiles a minor art. The only way to
avoid it was to work out designs that did not have this kind of
dependency. That ended up as an overall benefit because it forced
developers to pay attention to this aspect of design.

Marv

Marvin Waschke
Senior Technology Strategist
Governance & Service Management
Tel:      +1 360 383 9022 
           +1 425 201 3502 x13502
Mobile: +1 425 269 5592
Marvin.Waschke@ca.com
Blog: Iterating on IT Service


-----Original Message-----
From: public-sml-request@w3.org [mailto:public-sml-request@w3.org] On
Behalf Of Smith, Virginia (HP Software)
Sent: Thursday, September 06, 2007 12:34 AM
To: public-sml@w3.org
Subject: [w3c sml] [4639] Reference cycles - document-based vs.
element-based

Attached is a document that discusses element-based cycles vs.
document-based cycles. I thought it might be useful prior to further
discussion on this bug.

http://www.w3.org/Bugs/Public/show_bug.cgi?id=4639

--
ginny


---------------------
Virginia Smith
HP Software / BTO R&D
916-785-9940
8000 Foothills Blvd | Roseville | CA 95747 www.hp.com/software

Received on Thursday, 6 September 2007 23:56:59 UTC