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

[Gus Gassmann]

On 3 Jan 2011 at 16:02, Jun Ma wrote:

> 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.

I meant to comment on this, but I forgot to write things down yesterday. 
First, Kipp and I agree that some annotation is useful, for the reasons cited. 
Now, for OSoL files (and probably also for OSrL files) we will be hard-
pressed, I think, to find a source. Authors, yes, but a source is probably 
going to be hard to come by. That's why I wanted to add the <author> 
element into at least OSoL, and then I thought that by symmetry we should 
have it in OSiL and OSrL also. It's optional, so it does not add much clutter, 
but it would be useful to have. (Of course, <instanceHeader>, 
<optionHeader>, <resultHeader> should all be of the same type --- 
OSxLHeader? --- which should reside in OSgL.)

Cheers

gus