[Coin-standards] Technical Item! CLP

[Leonardo B. Lopes]

Lets try to get a technical thread started. It doesn't mean the others
have to stop.

> >That is not really my vision for the standard. I think of communicating
> >instances, not models. That distinction gets complicated once programs get
> >sufficiently sofisticated (especially with CLP), and that is one of the
> >things we need to figure out.
> 
> I agree.

If you've had lots of free time and followed the strategy thread, this
doesn't happen all that often :), so lets take advantage of it:

So what would be a good way of representing *instances* of CLP problems?
Where do they become models?

More specifically:

Is it sufficient to represent CLP instances as Non-linearities? Can we
define a few functions (cumulative, etc...) and then have a closed
representation for CLP?

Do we need to have an extension mechanism?

Could people sketch (brainstorm quality sketch) what the characteristics
of the representation should be?

Cheers,
Leo.

========================================================================
Leonardo B. Lopes                                       leo at iems.nwu.edu 
Ph.D. Student                                              (847)491-8470
IEMS - Northwestern University              http://www.iems.nwu.edu/~leo