> Not only that, but also to define new types of devices and connections
> for the model itself.
And in doing this, you start to approach the realm of the semantic
problem. The give away words in what you say are "new types". What
is a new type?
> And (3) How can we tell if the config *can* be applied to the device
> (no conflicting assignments; preconditions met); and (4) How can we
> tell that the configuration was successfully applied, and how to we
> back out the configuration on all other affected devices if not?
3 is effectively the semantic/knowledge representation problem. 4
is an operation you can construct given a good calculus of semantics
and representation.
> Yup, and in particular, it has to be easily extensible by
> non-programmer types. So I created a metadata syntax that Engineers
What that usually translates to is that programmer types provide a
restricted language for working with your problem. My present
employer hands out lisp macros to end users who are mostly blissfully
unaware of what goes on under the hood.
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
