[sc34wg3] Re: TMDM minor suggestion
Wed, 14 Dec 2005 20:23:28 +1000
On Tue, Dec 13, 2005 at 08:28:20PM +0100, Lars Marius Garshol wrote:
> * Robert Barta
> | I promise, I will never look at the doc again :-))
I lied, of course.
> | - 5.1 Constraint
> | "...to have strings..."
> | correct to "values"?
> | The constraint is confusing for me. First it is an error, if there
> | are equal identifiers. Then, it could be, because of topics.
> | But then they have to be merged, and then the fact of two equal
> | identifiers does not exist anymore.
> It says there are two situations:
> a) equal item identifiers for non-topics: error
> b) equal item identifiers for topics: merge
> I'm not sure what it is that's unclear about it?
Constraint: Duplicate item identifiers
It is an error for two different information items to have strings
that are equal in their [item identifiers] properties, unless they
are topic items. If they are topic items they shall be merged
according to the procedure in 6.2.
So it says, that it can never be the case that in an TMDM instance
there are two different topics with the same value as identifier. If
there were, then the topics are not merged, violating TMDM.
For non-topics it also can never be the case that in an TMDM instance
there are two different items have the same value there.
So why not say "No two items in an TMDM instance can have the same
item identifier". Maybe add the above explanation as Note....
> | - 5.3.2
> | "Note the uncertainty...."
> | Suggest to make a NOTE.
> We're still in the example. :)
Yes, although this does not quite come out like this in the rendered
text (looking at HTML).
> | 6.2 ad 8)
> | I note that the original topics are not removed?
> They are, but so subtly that people tend to miss it. See 2) and 3). :)
2) and 3) only seem to replace the _involvement_ of A and B throughout
the instance. But A and B as topic items still remain, or not? Maybe I
just have another interpretation of 'replace'?
> | 6.3 ad 6)
> | Suggest:
> | "..non-null values, the _respective_ topic items shall..."
> | Suggest:
> | "..from the merged set _is then_ the value...."
> It's not that easy, I'm afraid. "Set" is here a verb rather than a
> noun. Added a "be" in front of it to make this clearer.
Oh, I completely parsed the sentence differently, then.