Re: [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Package - Recursiveness vs multiplicity

Hello Christian,

> With regards to AVD-4504 I think i'd be happier adding "~" if we also tie=
d that capability to a package.

We had the same idea. =

The "~" as advanced wildcarding capability would definetely match the scope=
 of an "advanced SDP wildcarding package".

BR,
Albrecht


-----Original Message-----
From: Christian Groves [mailto:[email protected]] =

Sent: Donnerstag, 6. M=E4rz 2014 14:00
To: Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht); Tommy Young
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [H.248.39] Advanced SDP Wildcarding Package - Recursiveness vs=
 multiplicity

Hello Albrecht,

OK I see your point, the usage of "recursion" doesn't meet mathematical/log=
ic definition. I'm OK to rename it. Maybe the "multiple value response" wil=
dcard?

With regards to AVD-4504 I think i'd be happier adding "~" if we also tied =
that capability to a package.

Regards, Christian

On 6/03/2014 8:01 PM, Schwarz, Albrecht (Albrecht) wrote:
> Hello Christian, Tommy,
> thanks for the package proposal, a good solution for the related problem =
in our opinion.
>
> One pre-meeting comment concerning terminology, because possibly caused b=
y us. We were also struggling (when working on AVD-4504) with the editor's =
note concerning "recursion", but couldn't remember a real example.
>
> If we consider a single SDP line, then recursion would be a structure lik=
e "X =3D Y ... X ...", right?
> However, such SDP line grammar is not possible.
>
> If we consider line interlinkage, then a circular definition could be e.g.
> X =3D Y ...
> Y =3D X ...
> But again, such SDP line grammars are not possible.
>
> Thus, perhaps we should term the "$R" wildcard as "multiplicity wildcard"=
 or sth similar, but not "recursive wildcard".
> Or "cardinality wildcard" ... hm?
>
> What do you think?
> Albrecht
>
>
> Ref.:
> AVD-4538 H.248.39 Updates: Additional wildcarding
> AVD-4504 H.248.39 (Rev.): Wildcard "~" -  Continuation of discussion
>
>