RE: [plcs-dex] Name of template parameters

[Tim Turner <tjt@lsc.co.uk>]

No problem for me, though we need to be able to see whether this will affect other templates which are already configured for using the existing names as arguments. These will need to be re-done, figures, template calls, examples ..which is why we really need tools to see these interdependencies.

 

regards,

Tim

 

NB Ideally, the parameter description in the template should make the parameter definition explicit enough to understand - though I agree intuition is rather compromised.

---

From: Peter Bergström [mailto:peter.bergstrom@eurostep.com]
Sent: 20 May 2006 14:21
To: plcs-dex@lists.oasis-open.org
Subject: [plcs-dex] Name of template parameters

Hi,

 

I have been editing templates for a while now, and I have a question regarding the naming of parameters.

 

Why do we say xxx_class_name for parameters that are reference data? Just to indicate that they are reference data?

 

I think this makes things more confusing.

Take a numerical property as an example, I would anticipate to see a value parameter, and a unit parameter.

What we have is

- value

- unit_class_name

- si_unit

- rep_class_name

- rep_ecl_id

 -unit_ecl_id

 

It is not intuitive what 'unit' parameter to use, I think, but we can't do much about that, except call si_unit 'si_or_not' or something... I don't like that.

 

But I would like to change the rep_class_name to 'context', because it is the name of the context, not of the representation. I find it unnecessary to call it context_class_name, though.

 

And I would like to change unit_class_name to 'unit', since it is then easier to understand that this _is_ the unit (I think).

 

So my suggestion (which I have already implemented for your review in cap Representing_properties_numerically, template representing_value_numeric) is to have the following parameters:

-          value

-          unit

-          si_unit

-          context

-          context_ecl_id

-          unit_ecl_id

 

 

Please tell me if this is OK, or if I should change back.

 

Peter Bergström

Eurostep

PS I'm not suggesting that we should drop the _class_name all over the place. For IDs it makes perfect sense, we have an ID in an attribute, and the id_class_name is the class of ID. With unit and context above it is not the same, however, the class name is also the value of the unit and context.

 

 

DISCLAIMER: ***SECURITY LABEL: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED*** The information in this message is confidential and may be legally privileged. It is intended solely for the addressee. Access to this message by anyone else is unauthorised. If you are not the intended recipient, any disclosure, copying, or distribution of the message, or any action or omission taken by you in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. Please immediately contact the sender if you have received this message in error. This e-mail originates from LSC Group. Registered in England & Wales No 2275471 Registered Office: Devonport Royal Dockyard, Devonport, Plymouth, PL1 4SG