Steve,
We need to point as many of these out as possible to whoever has the pen (Andreas?)
Yes, I have the pen until the next teleconference. We should make a list of inconsistencies; they would make a good review item for the next teleconf. I'll pick up as many as I see on the list. I agree that in general the pseudo schema from the document should take precendence (unless it's broken) since that is what we worked on during the f2f. Andreas A Stephen McGough wrote:
Ok, the onslaught again!
I'm going to cut back tightly on this to remove those issues that are now dead.
General note: This has brought a large number of inconsistencies in the document to light. Michel you seem to have used the psudo-schema in order to write your version while I used the other parts of the document. These discrepencies need to be resolved. For now I've stuck with the document rather than the psudo-schema unless the psudo-schema makes much more sense.
Yes, indeed, I used the pseudo-schema. Although Dave kept track of it through the meeting, I didn't have it available when I started writing my schema version (since that was yesterday evening at home... *g*). Hence I compiled my own pseudo-schema based on the snippets given in the spec document posted on http://forge.gridforum.org on last Friday (thanks, Andreas!). This prep-step was quite enlightning since it really brightly demonstrated where contradictions within the document are/were (didn't keep track of these) and that the pseudo-schema truly builds up from modules. I started with the pseudo-schema on top level in pathetic notepad.exe, and replaced rough-defined elements (i.e. <User .../>) with the more detailed or completed versions given at their respective definition as I walked the document from top to bottom.
We need to point as many of these out as possible to whoever has the pen (Andreas?)