Re: Requirements Document Updated

/ Alex Milowski <alex@milowski.org> was heard to say:
| Henry S. Thompson wrote:
|
|> With respect, I think it's important _not_ to conflate inputs and
|> parameters.  This connects up with our discussion on the call
|> yesterday:  inputs, in the prototypical case at any rate, are XML
|> documents, whereas parameters are (or are adequately modelled as)
|> name-value pairs.  Not at all the same thing, and confusing to try to
|> use a single term to cover both.
|
| Here I have to agree as I view parameters as something that might be
| a simple value (like a string) or an XML document, while inputs
| are *only* XML documents.

Right. I agree as well, but going back to Alessandro's point that 
"parameters" is not well defined, I propose we add:

[Definition: Parameter]

  A parameter is input to a Step or an XML Pipeline in addition to the
  Input and Output Document(s) that it may access. Parameters are most
  often simple, scalar values such as integers, booleans, and URIs,
  and they are most often named, but neither of these conditions is
  mandatory. That is, we do not (at this time) constrain the range of
  values a parameter may hold, nor do we (at this time) forbid a Step
  from accepting anonymous parameters.

We should also keep in mind Erik's point about keeping things simple.
If, at the end of the day, we can describe our requirements and use
cases without appeal to "parameters" (if they can all just be
generalized as kinds of input to a Step or Pipeline), we can and
should remove this term. But for the moment, it seems that several of
us want to be able to speak about them, so let's define them.

                                        Be seeing you,
                                          norm

-- 
Norman.Walsh@Sun.COM / XML Standards Architect / Sun Microsystems, Inc.
NOTICE: This email message is for the sole use of the intended
recipient(s) and may contain confidential and privileged information.
Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited.
If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by
reply email and destroy all copies of the original message.

Received on Wednesday, 15 February 2006 18:50:41 UTC