I guess it depends on whether the semantics of ordinal costs is: A) rank according to numerical costs; or B) rank according to something the ALTO server knows
If you consider a future case where people define additional cost types the (A) requires them to also define both an ordinal and numeric cost type (assuming both are meaningful) whereas (B) doesn't and gives the ALTO server freedom to do what it likes. I don't have a strong opinion either way. Ben On 3 Oct 2012, at 18:07, Richard Alimi <[email protected]> wrote: > I can't think of a valid reason why they should be inconsistent. I'd > be fine with mandating it in the protocol, but I'd have to leave that > up to the chairs (and of course, feedback from the rest of the WG) > given that it has already been through WGLC and has been submitted to > IESG. > > Rich > > On Wed, Oct 3, 2012 at 9:23 AM, Bill Roome <[email protected]> wrote: >> Suppose an ALTO server supports both "numerical" and "ordinal" cost modes >> for the same cost type. Should the protocol require that the values for >> those two modes to be mutually consistent? >> >> And if we do want that, how should the requirement be worded? I'm tempted >> to say >> >> "Let num(A,B) and ord(A,B) be the numerical and ordinal costs >> for source PID A and destination PID B, respectively. >> Then for all PIDs A, B, C and D, >> num(A,B) >= num(C,D) implies ord(A,B) >= ord(C,D), >> ord(A,B) >= ord(C,D) implies num(A,B) >= num(C,D), >> num(A,B) <= num(C,D) implies ord(A,B) <= ord(C,D), >> ord(A,B) <= ord(C,D) implies num(A,B) <= num(C,D)." >> >> Is that sufficient? >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> alto mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto > _______________________________________________ > alto mailing list > [email protected] > https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto _______________________________________________ alto mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/alto
