[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [obix] Groups - obix-v1.1-wd37-noXsd.zip uploaded
Most of these are trivial. One (IS and friends) needs consensus. The only important one, and I think we touched on it in the call, is the one about the is, in, of, and out attributes. These are not of type “contract”, they are of type “contract list”, which is a space-separated list of one or more contracts. Unless “contract” is defined as that? 1) It could be of type obix:List, and be conformed to only contracts 2) It could be a set of 1-many contract objects 3) Alternately, a single object could have multiple IS object, but one element have multiple instances of the same attribute strikes me as bad practice. I think Craig has suggested (1), but if (2) is non-breaking, it strikes me as a better solution. tc "There are seldom good technological solutions to behavioral problems." -- Ed Crowley
From: Gemmill, Craig [mailto:craig.gemmill@tridium.com] Yep – I saw it, and I’ve made a few comments to Toby on it. I’ll include those here, if it helps. A couple comments on the xsd: · nit: line 74: oBIX -> OBIX · nit: line 12: elment -> element · nit: line 15: validitiy -> validity · line 221: If the ‘is’ attribute defines the contracts implemented by the object, should it be a contract list rather than just a contract? This also applies to in, of, and out, according to Section 7.2. · nit: line 354: oBIX -> OBIX The only important one, and I think we touched on it in the call, is the one about the is, in, of, and out attributes. These are not of type “contract”, they are of type “contract list”, which is a space-separated list of one or more contracts. Unless “contract” is defined as that? From: William Cox [mailto:wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com] Craig - On 10/29/14 8:15 AM, Craig Gemmill wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]