[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [obix] Contract questions
Sounds good. I look forward to talking in 20 minutes. tc “It is the theory that decides what can be observed." —Albert Einstein
From: Gemmill, Craig [mailto:craig.gemmill@tridium.com]
I think we just need to clarify the uses of Contract. The more I think about it, the more I think we really should keep the terms
Contract for the URI referencing a single object used as a template, and
Contract List for a sequence of these URIs. The confusion over the use of Nil is because we are not clearly explaining the concept of contract inheritance I think. Looking at the object hierarchy diagram, and identifying the places where the term ‘contract’ is in play: ·
List.of (default=obix:Obj) ·
Op.in (default =obix:Nil) ·
Op.out (default =obix:Nil) ·
Feed.in (default =obix:Nil) ·
Feed.out (default =obix:Obj) ·
Obj.is (no default) For the first five items, if the attribute does not appear in an instance of this object, then the default is used, which is unambiguous. Obix:Obj is one object template; obix:Nil is simply another object template.
There is nothing special about obix:Nil. All of these are just a sequence of Contracts, which MAY be empty. If the is attribute is not present, then the object derives directly from obix:obj.
Bill has a comment that the terminology is difficult to make clear. I think that is because of the switch from naming “thing” and “group of things” to naming “thing” and “parts of the thing”. I think our best
bet is to continue with Contract/Contract List, and then to be more explicit about where Contract List should be used instead of Contract. We can discuss today. From:
obix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:obix@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Gemmill, Craig The renaming is all that I could see was happening with the previous discussion. If the things I think of as ‘apples’ are known as ‘oranges’ to everyone else, I am fine to start calling the ‘oranges’; it does
not change what they are. I didn’t see that there was any fundamental change in the objects from our discussion. There is still a single thing which references an OBIX object by its URI. Then there is a space-separated sequence of these things. The sequence
is what is the value of the “is” attribute. It still just seems simpler to call them “contract”, and “contract list”, respectively. From:
obix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:obix@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of Considine, Toby I agree. I think you [Craig] are renaming the existing complexity rather than reaching through to simpler language. Probably too close. Forest / Trees. tc “It is the theory that decides what can be observed." —Albert Einstein
From:
obix@lists.oasis-open.org [mailto:obix@lists.oasis-open.org]
On Behalf Of William Cox I think this is making it more complex than needed. William Cox Email:
wtcox@CoxSoftwareArchitects.com Web:
http://www.CoxSoftwareArchitects.com +1 862 485 3696 mobile On 5/12/15 4:49 PM, Gemmill, Craig wrote:
|
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]