Hi Jason & all, I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)? Roman
Hi Roman; I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow. -jason On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason & all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
All; On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now. Thanks; -jason On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
Just to be sure we are on the same page: I interpret this to mean that merge chaining will not be used in messages that are part of the NMC protocol. Is that the same impression others got? Do we have general agreement on that? thanks, jeff On Apr 15, 2010, at 1:24 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier. Roman On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
Hi Roman; Could you start a thread over there on the issue? Thanks; -jason On 4/16/10 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
Hi Jason, On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
Could you start a thread over there on the issue?
Sure. I'll do that (give me some time because today I'm at home with my little son and access to my laptop is limited :) Roman
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/16/10 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its removal. Cheers, Aaron On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
Internet2 Spring Member Meeting April 26-28, 2010 - Arlington, Virginia http://events.internet2.edu/2010/spring-mm/
Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC but in fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM structures will be used in messages defined by NMC. Roman // Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland // phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its removal. Cheers, Aaron
On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples
do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be
described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure
that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless
after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they
might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples
presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would
remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
_______________________________________________
Nmc-wg mailing list
Nmc-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
Internet2 Spring Member Meeting April 26-28, 2010 - Arlington, Virginia http://events.internet2.edu/2010/spring-mm/
On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC but in fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM structures will be used in messages defined by NMC.
Ok, this was definitely not my impression. I was saying we should specifically define NMC protocol messages to use a sub-set of NM-WG schema that does NOT use merge chaining. jeff
Roman
// Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland // phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its removal. Cheers, Aaron On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples
do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be
described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure
that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless
after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they
might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples
presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would
remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
_______________________________________________
Nmc-wg mailing list
Nmc-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg Internet2 Spring Member Meeting April 26-28, 2010 - Arlington, Virginia http://events.internet2.edu/2010/spring-mm/
Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
As we are on the clarifing train: with removing merge chaining are we considering removing simply the merging bit or chaining as a whole? On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Jeff W.Boote <boote@internet2.edu> wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC but in fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM structures will be used in messages defined by NMC.
Ok, this was definitely not my impression. I was saying we should specifically define NMC protocol messages to use a sub-set of NM-WG schema that does NOT use merge chaining.
jeff
Roman
// Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland // phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its removal. Cheers, Aaron On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples
do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be
described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure
that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless
after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they
might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples
presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would
remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
_______________________________________________
Nmc-wg mailing list
Nmc-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg Internet2 Spring Member Meeting April 26-28, 2010 - Arlington, Virginia http://events.internet2.edu/2010/spring-mm/
Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
Hi Michael, On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Michael Bischoff wrote:
As we are on the clarifing train: with removing merge chaining are we considering removing simply the merging bit or chaining as a whole?
Functional chaining stays. Roman
On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 6:19 PM, Jeff W.Boote <boote@internet2.edu> wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
> > Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC but > in fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM structures > will be used in messages defined by NMC.
Ok, this was definitely not my impression. I was saying we should specifically define NMC protocol messages to use a sub-set of NM-WG schema that does NOT use merge chaining.
jeff
Roman
// Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland // phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its removal. Cheers, Aaron On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples
do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be
described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure
that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless
after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they
might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples
presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would
remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
_______________________________________________
Nmc-wg mailing list
Nmc-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg Internet2 Spring Member Meeting April 26-28, 2010 - Arlington, Virginia http://events.internet2.edu/2010/spring-mm/
Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
So I see that the only usage for merge chaining is store metadata file (for example store metada file of MA) Roman On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Jeff W. Boote wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC but in fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM structures will be used in messages defined by NMC.
Ok, this was definitely not my impression. I was saying we should specifically define NMC protocol messages to use a sub-set of NM-WG schema that does NOT use merge chaining.
jeff
Roman
// Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland // phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its removal. Cheers, Aaron On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples
do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be
described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure
that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless
after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they
might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples
presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would
remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
_______________________________________________
Nmc-wg mailing list
Nmc-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg Internet2 Spring Member Meeting April 26-28, 2010 - Arlington, Virginia http://events.internet2.edu/2010/spring-mm/
Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
Right, and that is not in the protocol. Does anyone have an issue with not allowing merge-chaining in protocol messages? thanks, jeff On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:30 AM, romradz@man.poznan.pl wrote:
So I see that the only usage for merge chaining is store metadata file (for example store metada file of MA)
Roman
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Jeff W. Boote wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC but in fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM structures will be used in messages defined by NMC.
Ok, this was definitely not my impression. I was saying we should specifically define NMC protocol messages to use a sub-set of NM-WG schema that does NOT use merge chaining.
jeff
Roman // Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland // phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its removal. Cheers, Aaron On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples
do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be
described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure
that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless
after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they
might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples
presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would
remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
_______________________________________________
Nmc-wg mailing list
Nmc-wg@ogf.org
http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
_______________________________________________ Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg Internet2 Spring Member Meeting April 26-28, 2010 - Arlington, Virginia http://events.internet2.edu/2010/spring-mm/
Nmc-wg mailing list Nmc-wg@ogf.org http://www.ogf.org/mailman/listinfo/nmc-wg
Personal vote: doesn't need to be in the protocol if we can't think of a good use beyond the backend of a service. I have stuck this on the agenda for Thursday where we can last-call it for good. Thanks; -jason On 5/5/10 2:02 AM, Jeff W. Boote wrote:
Right, and that is not in the protocol. Does anyone have an issue with not allowing merge-chaining in protocol messages?
thanks, jeff
On Apr 19, 2010, at 7:30 AM, romradz@man.poznan.pl wrote:
So I see that the only usage for merge chaining is store metadata file (for example store metada file of MA)
Roman
On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Jeff W. Boote wrote:
On Apr 16, 2010, at 10:09 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Yes, we can say that we are removing merge chaining from the NMC but in fact (in real examples) it will be still there as NM structures will be used in messages defined by NMC.
Ok, this was definitely not my impression. I was saying we should specifically define NMC protocol messages to use a sub-set of NM-WG schema that does NOT use merge chaining.
jeff
Roman // Roman Lapacz, PSNC Poland // phone: (+48 61) 858 20 24 On Fri, 16 Apr 2010, Aaron Brown wrote:
To alleviate some confusion on my end, are we removing merge chaining from the NMC protocols? I thought that was what Jeff meant when he talked about removing merge chaining, but based on the emails, I'm not sure if that was how others interpreted it. I'd would be wholly in favor of its removal. Cheers, Aaron On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:04 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
I propose to continue the discussion on merge chaining (and examples) on NM-WG mailing list (not to leave it for far future). I'll be waiting there for your opinions I asked ealier.
Roman
On Thu, 15 Apr 2010, Jason Zurawski wrote:
All;
On the call today everyone was in agreement that merge chaining examples
do not need to be in the NMC document. They will continue to be
described in NM however. If anyone disagrees, speak up now.
Thanks;
-jason
On 4/14/10 3:07 PM, Jason Zurawski wrote:
Hi Roman;
I agree. I will add this to the agenda for tomorrow.
-jason
On 4/13/10 7:12 AM, Roman Lapacz wrote:
Hi Jason& all,
I'm reading merge chaining examples in the base doc and I'm not sure
that keeping partial metadata elements, which in my opinion are useless
after chaining oparation, is a good approach. I don't believe that they
might be used for any further processing. Keeping them in the examples
presenting merged structures may be confusing for a reader. I would
remove them. What do you think (see examples in the attachements)?
Roman
participants (7)
-
Aaron Brown -
Jason Zurawski -
Jeff W. Boote -
Jeff W.Boote
-
Michael Bischoff -
Roman Lapacz -
romradz＠man.poznan.pl