Re: Location of 'techniques' in TCDL

Hi Daniela,

Quoting Daniela Ortner <Daniela.Ortner@jku.at>:
> you wrote that with the first option ('techniques' in 'locations'
> after
> 'location') we would be able to describe how a location and a
> certain
> technique relate. The current schema would allow the following:
> 
> <locations>
>    <location>
>    </location>
>    <location>
>    </location>
>    ...
>    <technique>
>    </technique>
>    <technique>
>    </technique>
>    ...
> </locations>
> 
> But what does that indicate? That the first <location> belongs to
> the
> first <technique>? 
> I see no possibility to express relationship between a location and
> a
> technique from this example.
> 
> Wouldn't it be better to construct something like:
> 
> <locations>
>    <location>
>       <technique>
>       </technique>
>       <technique>
>       </technique>
>       ...
>    </location>
>    <location>
>       <technique>
>       </technique>
>       <technique>
>       </technique>
>       ...
>    </location>
>    ...
> </locations>
> 
> Looking forward to read your thoughts on that...

That idea also crossed my mind, but we already have EARL pointers 
inside location (with an <xs:all> group). If we want to go down this 
road, it would look like this:

<locations>
  <location>
    <!-- EARL pointers here -->
    <techniques>
      <technique />
      <technique />
    </techniques>
  </location>
  <location>
    <!-- EARL pointers here -->
    <techniques>
      <technique />
      <technique />
    </techniques>
  </location>
</locations>

Do people like this approach?

Best regards,

Christophe

> Regards,
> Daniela
> 
> 
> 
> >>> cstrobbe <Christophe.Strobbe@esat.kuleuven.be> 17.10.2006
> 18:30:03
> >>>
> 
> Hi,
> 
> While cleaning up the last issues in TCDL, I noticed a curious bug/
> feature in the schema: 
> 'techniques' can be added 
> * either in 'locations' (after 'location', which is the first child 
> element of 'locations'),
> * or in 'rule', after 'locations'.
> 
> The second option is what I originally proposed [1], but the first 
> option would allow us to describe more accurately how a 'location'
> and
> 
> certain 'techniques' relate, especially if a test case uses several 
> techniques in different locations. The latter may not be a use case
> in
> 
> this task force, but it would be interesting for BenToWeb or other
> test
> 
> suite efforts. Are there any objections to removing 'techniques' from
> 
> 'rule' and allowing it only in 'locations'?
> 
> Best regards,
> 
> Christophe
> 
> 
> [1] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-wai-ert-tsdtf/2006Sep/
> 
> 0019.html
> 
> 
> -- 
> Christophe Strobbe
> K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group
> on
> 
> Document Architectures
> Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
> tel: +32 16 32 85 51
> http://www.docarch.be/ 
> 
> Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm 
> 
> 
> 


-- 
Christophe Strobbe
K.U.Leuven - Departement of Electrical Engineering - Research Group on 
Document Architectures
Kasteelpark Arenberg 10 - 3001 Leuven-Heverlee - BELGIUM
tel: +32 16 32 85 51
http://www.docarch.be/ 

Disclaimer: http://www.kuleuven.be/cwis/email_disclaimer.htm

Received on Wednesday, 18 October 2006 09:37:33 UTC