[Os-project-managers] Question about OSoL and OSrL

[Horand Gassmann]

Kipp Martin <kmartin at chicagobooth.edu> wrote:

> Hi Gus:
>>
>> I know that I am making more work for myself, but it occurred to me
>> that the OSoL (and OSrL) schemas are lacking the file information we
>> provide in the OSiL files in form of the <instanceHeader>. Trying to
>> debug the OSoL parser and the unit test I am forced to look at old
>> osol files that I wrote to test the osol parser that existed at that
>> time, and it would now be useful to have had some information as to
>> what I was thinking at the time.
>>
>> I propose to add the following optional information:
>>
>> <optionHeader>
>>      <name>
>>      <author>
>>      <source>
>>      <description>
>>
>> (and similarly for <resultHeader>). I also propose to add <author> to
>> the <instanceHeader> in OSiL.
>>
>> Since this is optional stuff, I hope we can treat this as a consent
>> agenda item.
>>
>> Any thoughts?
>
> I consent and think it is a good idea. But where would it go? Would
> <optionHeader> be a child of <general> or would it go before <general>?

My thinking is that it should go before <general>, just for better  
visibility. But I do not feel strongly about that.

Cheers

gus