Scott Hudson <> writes:
> I think this has been very helpful, and shows the potential assemblies
> in increasing orders of complexity in a user-friendly manner. I think
> there is a typo in the 2nd para of 5. Example Assembling an Online
> Book. "but it will be in the long run" should be "but it will be
> better in the long run".
Right.
> I'd like to include an example of adding the relationships to your
> last example. Perhaps something like this:
>
> <relationship type="troubleshooting">
> <instance resourceref="tut3"/>
> <instance resourceref="tut5"/>
> <instance resourceref="task4"/>
> <instance resourceref="task3"/>
> </relationship>
>
> <relationship type="widget">
[...]
> </relationship>
>
> <relationship type="tutorial">
[...]
> </relationship>
>
> <relationship type="task">
[...]
> </relationship>
Ok, but what are the processing expectations of these elements? What
does the processor do with them?
At a high level, the model I've documented so far starts with a collection
of resources and an assembly document. The assembly document describes how
a set of resources is composed (and possibly transformed) into a new
structure.
Do relationship elements fit into that model?
Be seeing you,
norm
--
Norman Walsh <> | I have animal magnetism. When I go
http://nwalsh.com/ | outside, squirrels stick to my clothes.
