
Hi Aaron, Thanks for your mail. I think I see your point, but I want it to be clear (I struggled with some text in the document, and am not happy yet). So I'm going to be devil's advocate for the next two mails.
The problem is ambiguity. If I can define a new, named object inside of a relation element, how does a parser know that the named object inside the relationship is defined there, as opposed to elsewhere?
Why does a parser need to know know that the named object inside the relationship is defined there, as opposed to elsewhere? E.g. why can't it just create the object, even though the object may be incomplete, or the object may be wrong. If the rest of the definition is elsewhere in the topology description, Can't it augment the created object with that information when it encounters it later in the file? If not, why not? Just mention one or two reasons, no need for details. I'll put in my next question based on your answer. (You explicitly mentioned typo detection as one reason, and I previously mentioned that it is useful to distinguish between full object descriptions and mere object references. Are these the two reasons? Are they both valid enough to define a relation or parameter?) Freek