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

[Jun Ma]

First I am not that against of adding the options. Just trying on purpose to 
the the bad guy--by default "arguing against every change".
But wait.
Let's clarify first: the options in the OSoL file is *really* options to be 
used in optimization; they are NOT descriptions about the option file.
So obviously, the three suggested elements, by the fact that they are 
"borrowed" from OSiL, are descriptions of what the OSoL file is.
Is it necessary? Or is it that important?
The reason that they are in OSiL is because we think they are necessary 
given the instance is usually quite important. But we didn't even put 
<author> there, because <source> is just general enough and
we don't want to over engineer it with too heavy a structure. After all they 
are mainly for archiving and reporting purposes, and not for the 
optimization purposes.

Jun

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Horand Gassmann" <Horand.Gassmann at dal.ca>
Sent: Monday, January 03, 2011 2:11 PM
To: <os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org>
Subject: Re: [Os-project-managers] Question about OSoL and OSrL

> 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
>
> _______________________________________________
> Os-project-managers mailing list
> Os-project-managers at list.coin-or.org
> http://list.coin-or.org/mailman/listinfo/os-project-managers
>