Open peter-lobner opened 1 year ago
Documentation is currently missing
Similar to the other PR, this needs to be redone so the actual changes are visible.
However I do not think this is a good idea in general, because it allows contradictory information that implementations then need to handle: I can state that an SSD is an e.g. parameter variant of another SSD; however nothing ensures that this is true, so an implementation more or less has to check and handle inconsistencies anyway. In that case I can already deduce it is a parameter variant algorithmically, and the new information does not add anything to the picture, except maybe intent (the name of the variant for user-selection is already given by the SSD meta-data attributes according to our current spec). It does not even provide any indication which parameters or component has changed, so again I need to do a full differential analysis of the SSD contents, which would then already give me all the information in the new element, except a directionality (which to consider the base and the derivative), however there often is no such thing anyway, as e.g. 3 parameter variants will very often not usefully be described by base + 2 derivatives, but rather just 3 parameter variants on equal footing.
If we want to support parameter variants and/or component variants in a better way than we currently can, I think more structural changes are needed. Just my two cents as of now.
Yes this is a "lightweight implementation" that aims to add variant semantics that are currently missing. I agree that a more comprehensive solution would be better, but as mentioned that needs more structural changes, that I'm not sure are desired for SSP 2.0
Proposal for SSD variants with clearer semantics, specifying the base SSD of a variant and the kind of a variant (parameterization and/or component implementation variant).