RE: [ebXML-Registry] Rename "RegistryObject" and "RegistryEntry" andother comments on RIM

["Breininger, Kathryn R" <Kathryn.Breininger@PSS.Boeing.com>]

Perhaps a simpler (easier to understand) name for these items would be "RegistryRecord" for "RegistryObject", (since a database record is a recording of the metadata about that item).  This is a fairly common way to refer to the metadata about an item, and is generally understood.  It also indicates that this is the complete set of information about an item, indicating a whole which cannot be confused with sets of metadata.  Sets of metadata may not be the whole description of the item as reflected in the database, and we need a name that is for the whole description.

> ----------
> From: 	Damodaran, Suresh[SMTP:Suresh_Damodaran@stercomm.com]
> Sent: 	Thursday, August 09, 2001 4:12 PM
> To: 	regrep@lists.oasis-open.org
> Subject: 	[ebXML-Registry] Rename "RegistryObject" and "RegistryEntry" and	other comments on RIM
> 
> 
> Since we are doing a makeover of RIM, I propose that
> we rename these two classes to mean what they really are
> (we should know what they really are by now, after all
> the discussions?) I have had difficulty explaining these
> concepts to others and not wonder at the same time where these names crept
> from:-)
> I do claim innocent of all prior associations with these names
> in ebXML Registry. Now that I do not sound too defensive,
> here is my proposal:
> 
> RegistryObject contains metadata that describes each entity stored
> or referenced in the registry, relationships among these entities.
> If indeed this is the case, let us rename "RegistryObject" to 
> "RegistryMetaData" or something else that has "MetaData" explicitly.
> [Actually: I would have separated the notion of the "description of the
> entity"
> from "description of the relationships among entities" in the interest
> of cleaner design - the former can exist by itself, whereas the later
> cannot exist without the former. Once I have these I would have simply
> associated them. I suspect, what got us here is that the lifecycle concept,
> since
> it applies to both these notions, made us simplify the classes further.
> I would have captured this notion as a separate base class, and made both 
> classes inherit from it]
> 
> RegistryEntry contains "extended metadata," where metadata seems the same
> as before. Why not call it "RefgistryExtendedMetaData" - quite a mouthful,
> I agree.
> 
> OK, I suspect there was much discussion on this topic before, so this must
> be some can of worms. Don't be surprised if I keep my peace for a while
> on this, just because of that.
> 
> Regards,
> -Suresh
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe from this elist send a message with the single word
> "unsubscribe" in the body to: regrep-request@lists.oasis-open.org
>