[jsdl-wg] FINAL CALL: Parameter sweep extension (to Sep. 19)

[Michel Drescher]

Folks,

thanks to quick responses to missing pieces I just managed to put  
draft 2 on to Gridforge: http://forge.ogf.org/sf/go/doc14595?nav=1

Cheers,
Michel

On 15 Sep 2008, at 16:44, Michel Drescher wrote:

> Hi Donal,
>
> thanks for that. Comments on your issues in-lined below.
>
> On 11 Sep 2008, at 18:29, Donal K. Fellows wrote:
>> [...]
>>
>> Bugfix: inconsistent paragraph separation on page 3
>
> Done.
>
>> Bugfix: example on page 6 uses DocumentNode to enclose XPath  
>> without any
>> namespace mappings; suggested fix: note in text above that this is an
>> abbreviated form for example purposes.
>
> Added the necessary mappings to be consistent with the rest of the  
> document.
>
>> Bugfix: example on page 8 has similar problems, and has "[sweep]"  
>> just
>> above it (not a syntax recognized from elsewhere or defined here!)
>> though it looks like a broken reference to another document?
>
> Added the necessary mappings to the example. Replaced "[sweep]" with  
> "Sweep".
>
>> Bugfix: page 9 contains many uses of the odd syntax described above.
>
> Those notations refer to their definition in the XPath  
> specification. Therefore I refrained from changing that syntax.
>
>> Bugfix: footnote 1 on page 9 contains multiple references to the same
>> document!
>
> Duplicates removed.
>
>> Bugfix: inconsistent paragraph separation on page 10
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Query: is it worthwhile stating what happens with substring selection
>> when using multiple assignments into the same field and some of those
>> assignments change the length of the overall string? (Question  
>> brought
>> about by reference to Example 3 (pp11-13) though that doesn't have  
>> this
>> problem.)
>
> I would argue that this is implementation dependant. I think this is  
> not only a corner case but also a case where I doubt we will ever  
> reach consensus on what the right way would be to behave in this  
> case. I would therefore let the market decide in their  
> implementations.
>
>> Bugfix: on too many pages to list, we're inconsistent about  
>> formatting
>> of XML QNames and XPath fragments.
>
> Fixed (completely, I hope). Were many spots to fix ...
>
>> Query: is it worth using an abstract mathematical description of  
>> sweep
>> functions? (They're a pair, consisting of a maximal count and a  
>> function
>> from an integer to the DOM node to substitute.)
>
> I thought about this right from start. I would say nay for practical  
> reasons. The document is already fairly abstract. Making it even  
> more abstract would make it much more difficult to relate/translate  
> to a real implementation, I guess.
>
>> Query: is it worth noting that implementations may wish to  
>> constrain the
>> allowable space of values for LoopDouble/@step to exclude zero?
>
> The description of the LoopInteger function gives an explicit value  
> range that implementations must support. I fail to see a reason for  
> implementations to further constrain that value range.
>
>> Bugfix: in Examples 7-8 (pp31-33) should explicitly note that the
>> problematic elements are in red. Maybe make them bold too
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Bugfix: Title of "Further Examples" section is surprising; "FileSweep
>> Examples" might have been better.
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Query: is it worth giving each example a name and not just a number?
>
> The first paragraphs in the example sections outline the purpose of  
> the examples. Some examples are very similar but different, so they  
> would end up with the same crisp title unless it would be almost  
> ridiculously long ...
>
>> Bugfix: The copyright notice should use a copyright symbol and not  
>> "(C)"
>> where possible (really!) Here's a free one: © Don't wear it out. ;-)
>
> Fixed.
>
>> Bugfix: The sweep namespace MUST use 'ogf' and not 'ggf'. Fix on pp4,
>> 22-24, 26-28, 30-32, 34, 43, 45, 47. (But sweepfunc and file-sweep  
>> are
>> both fine.)
>
> Fixed. several occasions of "sweepfunc" were actually inconsistently  
> using the GGF namespace. *argh*
>
> I am currently missing one final piece of information, i.e. Geoff's  
> affiliation details to put into the final draft, before publishing  
> draft 22, which I consider ready for submission. As soon as I have  
> Geoffs details I will publish the draft to the Mailing list and  
> Gridforge.
>
> Cheers,
> Michel
>
> --
> Michel Drescher
> Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe, Ltd.
> Hayes Park Central
> Hayes End Road
> Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE
> Reg. No. 4153469
>
> +44 20 8606 4834
> Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com
>
>
>
>
> --
>  jsdl-wg mailing list
>  jsdl-wg at ogf.org
>  http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/jsdl-wg

--
Michel Drescher
Fujitsu Laboratories of Europe, Ltd.
Hayes Park Central
Hayes End Road
Hayes, Middlesex UB4 8FE
Reg. No. 4153469

+44 20 8606 4834
Michel.Drescher at uk.fujitsu.com