FW: cascade vs. inherit

Here is the conversation that Erik Hennum and I had about “inherit”
and “cascade” a little over a year ago now.  Hopefully it is still useful.

 

   -Jeff

 

From: Ogden, Jeff 

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:40 PM

To: 'Erik Hennum'

Cc: 'Robert D Anderson'

Subject: RE: cascade vs. inherit

 

OK, then for the purposes of element and attribute values we won’t
use the term “inherit” and we’ll saying things like:

 

   [certain] element and attribute values cascade to
decedents

   [certain] element and attribute values are propagated
from a map to a topic and will cascade within the topic

 

Let me know if this looks more or less right.  No reply
necessary unless I’ve got it wrong.

 

    -Jeff

 

From: Erik Hennum
[mailto:] 

Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2008 2:02 PM

To: Ogden, Jeff

Cc: Robert D Anderson

Subject: Re: cascade vs. inherit

 

Hi, Jeff:

To avoid confusion of type hierarchies and containment hierarchies, I'd suggest
the following terminology:

 
"inherit" for
     type hierarchies 

 
"cascade" for
     containment hierarchies

Because topics are not part of the map containment hierarchy, maybe
"propagate" or "populate" would be a better term.

On the other hand, maybe obsessing about such distinctions is a little
excessive...

Thanks for the pragmatic scrupulousness,

Erik Hennum



 ----------------

 

  
  

  From:

  
  
  

  "Ogden, Jeff" <>

  
 

 

  
  

  To:

  
  
  

  Erik Hennum/Oakland/IBM@IBMUS

  
 

 

  
  

  Date:

  
  
  

  06/11/2008 09:45 AM

  
 

 

  
  

  Subject:

  
  
  

  cascade vs. inherit

  
 

Erik,

 [The DITA 1.1 Architecture
Spec]  uses the term
“inherit” in the sense that certain attributes and elements inherit values from
ancestors. But I think we want to change things to use the term “cascade”
instead, as in certain attributes and element values cascade to their
decedents.

I want to make sure I am using
the terminology correctly and Robert suggested that I check with you.

Is this a change that we want to
make?

Should cascade replace all use
of the term inherit or are there still cases where a value doesn’t cascade, but
it does inherit?

We have the case of cascading
within a single topic or map document and we have the case of cascading from a
map to a topic. Is cascade the right term to use for these two cases?

-Jeff