[OASIS Issue Tracker] Commented: (ODATA-535) Define specialization for terms

[OASIS Issues Tracker <workgroup_mailer@lists.oasis-open.org>]

    [ http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ODATA-535?page=com.atlassian.jira.plugin.system.issuetabpanels:comment-tabpanel&focusedCommentId=34990#action_34990 ] 

Ralf Handl commented on ODATA-535:
----------------------------------

Note: above comments are related to a totally different proposal.

> Define specialization for terms
> -------------------------------
>
>                 Key: ODATA-535
>                 URL: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/browse/ODATA-535
>             Project: OASIS Open Data Protocol (OData) TC
>          Issue Type: Improvement
>          Components: OData CSDL
>    Affects Versions: V4.0_CS01
>         Environment: [Proposed]
>            Reporter: Ralf Handl
>             Fix For: V4.0_CSD03
>
>
> When merging type terms and value terms we lost the possibility to define terms that are a specialization of other terms, e.g. "a developer is a person with programming skills".
> Given:
> - term Person using complex PersonType
> What we can currently do:
> - define a complex DeveloperType that inherits from PersonType
> - annotate something with term Person and use a record of type DeveloperType
> <Annotation Term="X.Person">
>   <Record Type="Y.DeveloperType">
>     <PropertyValue Property="Name" Path="Fullname" /> <!-- defined on PersonType -->
>     <PropertyValue Property="ProgrammingSkills" Path="ListOfSkills" /> <!-- defined on DeveloperType -->
>   </Record>
> </Annotation>
> So someone knowing the term Person will find this term with additional properties defined on the DeveloperType. 
> (If we don't accept ODATA-513 that someone may only find the additional properties and none of the PersonType properties, here: only the ProgrammingSkills and no Name).
> Drawback: no term "Developer", semantic "is a developer" is expressed indirectly.
> Drawback: supports only one level. If an Architect is a special Developer, then the "is a developer" semantics is lost because the record's type is "Z.ArchitectType" and Y.DeveloperType is no longer mentioned in the annotation.
> What we'd like to do:
> - define a term Developer and indicate in the term definition that it specializes term Person
> - annotate something with term Developer in a way that someone knowing only Person and with no access to the definition of term Developer can recognize a Developer as a Person. This should also work with longer specialization chains
> Other examples:
> - a Team is a collection of Person instances
> - a DevelopmentTeam is a Team, and also a collection of Developer instances
> - a ScrumTeam is a DevelopmentTeam with a ScrumMaster, a ScrumMaster is a Developer

-- 
This message is automatically generated by JIRA.
-
If you think it was sent incorrectly contact one of the administrators: http://tools.oasis-open.org/issues/secure/Administrators.jspa
-
For more information on JIRA, see: http://www.atlassian.com/software/jira