Re: [SpecGL Draft] D1: Indicate which subdivisions are mandatory

Thanks for adding the actual technique to the conditions to consider.


>>  Techniques
>>  Consider the following conditions:
>>·       atomicity of the subdivisions
>
>         Create a graph of all subdivisions to show their atomicity
>
>>·       any mandatory subdivisions
>
>         Label in this graph the ones which are mandatory
>
>>·       dependencies among subdivisions: e.g., modules that require and 
>>build on functionally related modules, modules that require modules from 
>>other functional areas
>
>         Show the dependencies among subdivisions, explicit the 
> relationships, e.g., modules that require and build on functionally 
> related modules, modules that require modules from other functional areas
>
>
>>·       constraints against combined occurrence of particular pairs of 
>>modules
>
>         Create a list of the constraints against....
>
>>·       other conditions or constraints beyond these.
>
>         Show all other conditions...
>
>Question: When all of these techniques have been done, how the good 
>practice "Indicate which subdivisions are mandatory for conformance" is 
>achieved?
>         A list of only mandatory subdivisions
>         A keyword ala "Required for Conformance" of Profile "X" in each 
> subdivision?

Yes.  I realized that I left this out.  This is good. I also need to relate 
this to the conformance clause - putting something in the conformance clause.


For example in SpecGL Lite, how will we express the dependencies of this D1 
module and how does it impact the conformance section.

Exactly.


>>  Examples:
>>  Content can be required to conform to one of the subdivisions (e.g., 
>> profiles)  or it may be conformant to the specification independently of 
>> a subdivision.  The question arises for a producer (of content): is it 
>> conforming if it generates content that is otherwise valid but does not 
>> conform to the subdivision.
>
>         Did you think about something in particular?

No.  I took this from the old SpecGL

--Lynne

Received on Thursday, 22 July 2004 09:31:18 UTC