Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- about:constructing_principle_languages [2013-08-27 16:19] – christian
+++ about:constructing_principle_languages [2013-08-27 16:34] (current) – christian
@@ Line 11: / Line 11: @@
         * If in these situations one would want to consider also B then insert a relationship from A to B
   * //Relationship Types//: There are different types of relationships between principles. Generalization/specialization can be used to find more appropriate principles replacing currently considered ones, contrary principles point out important drawbacks, and complementary principles show further aspects which may be worth considering. But these relationship types are not as clear as it seams. Principles which are contrary in one situation may be complementary in another one, etc. So for specifying the "correct", i.e. most helpful relationship type, it is necessary to again envision the typical design situations for the principle and find out which relationship is helpful in the most situations.
-  * //Shortcut Relationships//:
+  * //Shortcut Relationships//: Traversing a principle language is transitive to some extend. Suppose there are the principles A, B and C. Considering A may lead to B and considering B may lead to C. In such a case there is the question whether or not to create a “shortcut-relationship” directly going from A to C. The difference is that in the first case C is only considered when B is considered. In the second case the shortcut creates a direct navigation path from A to C. So C can be considered without having B. Here is also the question how a developer would want to navigate the principle language. It depends on the possible design decisions and not merely on the principles.