Re: HRAC submeeting team meeting July 30, 1998: minutes

[barkley@sdct-sunsrv1.ncsl.nist.gov (John Barkley)]

<> 2. Is the proposed "tree-like hierarchy" restricted to a tree or can
<> it be any acyclic directed graph (ADG), i.e. can there be more than
<> one path to a node? For example, symbolic links provide multiple paths
<> to a Unix file. All trees are ADGs but not all ADGs are trees. 
<> Unfortunately, the term "hierarchy" is used for both things that are 
<> arbitrary ADGs and things restricted to trees.
<
<If multiple path to a node introduces extra complexity (design, implementation,
<usage), then I think we want to do it only if it is necessary. Do you think it
<is?

Offhand, from a design and implemenation point of view, I shouldn't think it
would introduce much more complexity. From the point of view of usage, there
seems to be some strong feelings that the proposed resource structure
is not very useful and could be harmful.
 
<>    
<> 3. The text implies that there is a single "root" for all resources.
<> Is this the case, or can there be a forest of "tree-like hierarchies"?
<
<The meeting participants did not discuss this issue.
<I do not think it increases design, implementation or other complexity, unless
<(as in Unix) there is reason to use relative (as opposed to absolute) paths. If
<my assumption (no extra complexity) is correct then why not.
<
<Will tree-like hierarchy without multiple paths suffice for resource space
<organization?

My thought in asking this question is that from a specification point of
view, if you specify a forest of tree-like structures, then that includes
the case where you have a forest of trees each of which consists of a tree
whose structure is simply a root. That is equivalent to a flat resouce space.
 
jb
----------------
Broadcast message to hrac-rfp from barkley@sdct-sunsrv1.ncsl.nist.gov (John Barkley).
Go to http://cadse.cs.fiu.edu/omg/hrac-rfp to browse the mail list archive.