Question about multiplicity in GLUE 2.0 Specification
Hello all! :) On GLUE 2.0 Specification v. 2.0 from 3rd March 2009, which is the latest, I see that the multiplicity field is specified as '*', '0..*' or '1..*'. I assume that '*' is the same as '0..*' as this is the standard convention. Anyway it should be good to concrete it for every field and just have either '0..*' or '1..*'. So, is this specification still open for little changes like this? Regards, David -- David Horat Software Engineer specialized in Grid and Web technologies IT Department – Grid Deployment Group CERN – European Organization for Nuclear Research » Where the web was born Phone +41 22 76 77996 http://davidhorat.com/ http://cern.ch/horat http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidhorat
Hi David, Thanks for looking through the document. On Tuesday 24 March 2009 15:17:16 David Horat wrote:
On GLUE 2.0 Specification v. 2.0 from 3rd March 2009, which is the latest, I see that the multiplicity field is specified as '*', '0..*' or '1..*'.
Correct.
I assume that '*' is the same as '0..*' as this is the standard convention.
Your assumption is correct; in fact, the term is defined on page 6.
Anyway it should be good to concrete it for every field and just have either '0..*' or '1..*'. So, is this specification still open for little changes like this?
The two terms '*' and '0..*' refer to the same concept: zero or more items. Using two terms for the same concept is an inconsistency in the document, which should be fixed. I guess this should be recorded in some errata document (wiki page, etc) initially. I'm not sure how documents are updated within OGF. From a quick scan through the document I found (only) five places where '0..*' is used, the remainder are '*'. Also the term '*' is defined whereas '0..*' isn't. So to fix the inconsistency we should change the five occurances of the '0..*' term to '*'. That said, I'm also in favour of '0..*' because to me it's meaning is clearer and is more in keeping with the other term: '1..*'. I'm not sure how others feel about changing '*' to '0..*'. Cheers, Paul.
Hi Paul, For me it is a pleasure to help with this document. To hold all the errata that we find, I have created a wiki page at: http://forge.gridforum.org/sf/wiki/do/viewPage/projects.glue-wg/wiki/GLUE20E... We can hold the information here while we discuss it via email before making a proper errata document. Regards, David On Wed, Mar 25, 2009 at 12:04 PM, Paul Millar <paul.millar@desy.de> wrote:
Hi David,
Thanks for looking through the document.
On Tuesday 24 March 2009 15:17:16 David Horat wrote:
On GLUE 2.0 Specification v. 2.0 from 3rd March 2009, which is the latest, I see that the multiplicity field is specified as '*', '0..*' or '1..*'.
Correct.
I assume that '*' is the same as '0..*' as this is the standard convention.
Your assumption is correct; in fact, the term is defined on page 6.
Anyway it should be good to concrete it for every field and just have either '0..*' or '1..*'. So, is this specification still open for little changes like this?
The two terms '*' and '0..*' refer to the same concept: zero or more items. Using two terms for the same concept is an inconsistency in the document, which should be fixed. I guess this should be recorded in some errata document (wiki page, etc) initially. I'm not sure how documents are updated within OGF.
From a quick scan through the document I found (only) five places where '0..*' is used, the remainder are '*'. Also the term '*' is defined whereas '0..*' isn't. So to fix the inconsistency we should change the five occurances of the '0..*' term to '*'.
That said, I'm also in favour of '0..*' because to me it's meaning is clearer and is more in keeping with the other term: '1..*'. I'm not sure how others feel about changing '*' to '0..*'.
Cheers,
Paul.
-- David Horat Software Engineer specialized in Grid and Web technologies IT Department – Grid Deployment Group CERN – European Organization for Nuclear Research » Where the web was born Phone +41 22 76 77996 http://davidhorat.com/ http://cern.ch/horat http://www.linkedin.com/in/davidhorat
participants (2)
-
David Horat -
Paul Millar