Re: Proposed removal of hierarchy from CAP

["John Stracke" <jstracke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

>>I'm not sure that SIBLING is a NOP.  It seems like its value would be in 

>>being able to take "a CHILD b && a SIBLING c" and infer "a CHILD c" 
>
>Not sure what family you grew up in but where I come from it doesnt read 
that way

So I wrote it ambiguously.  I meant "a has a CHILD property pointing to 
b".

>>Bruce, can you explain what you'd use SIBLING for? 
>
>In iCalendar, we defined SIBLING to mean a peer (see Sections 4.2.15
>Relationship Type and 4.8.4.5 Related To).

Yes, I did read that.  But iCalendar doesn't define "peer", so the obvious 
way to interpret it is to assume "SIBLING" means "sibling".  If that's not 
the intention, it should be either clarified or struck from iCalendar.

/==========================================================\
|John Stracke                   |Principal Engineer        |
|jstracke@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx  |Incentive Systems, Inc.   |
|http://www.incentivesystems.com|My opinions are my own.   |
|==========================================================|
|News flash: Linux now implements RFC-1149, IP over Carrier|
|Pigeon!                                                   |
\==========================================================/