Re: Associations in TM/XML

* Lars Heuer
> 
> But your point is valid as well [...]

Yeah, that's really the conclusion. Duplicates may cause problems, and, with associations, stating them just once may also cause problems. The paper isn't really very clear on what's required and what's not, mainly because it's a paper and not a spec.

I guess consistent behaviour is the most important thing, so that consumers know what to expect. Making the consistent behaviour easy to deal with for consumers is good, too.

I suspect that the best way to do this may be to say:

 (1) No duplicate names or occurrences.
 (2) Duplicate associations for each player.

The rationale for (2) being that otherwise the choice of which player gets the association will not necessarily be predictable, and it may be that some parent-child associations appear on the parent, and others on the child. Even if you require it to be consistent per association type that still doesn't necessarily make it predictable which player gets the association, and at the end of the day it may be easier to simply just duplicate them.

(Sorry for the late reply. We've just moved, and don't have internet at home yet.)

--Lars M.
http://www.garshol.priv.no/tmphoto/
http://www.garshol.priv.no/blog/