| Re: [higgins-dev] IdAS: Model as Metadata |
|
Yeah, you've summarized a pretty close approximation of what we ended up with after discussing this on the #higgins IRC. The thought is to make each model element be comprised of a set of properties. That way we get extensibility as well as update. I'll try to send something more formal to this list later.
Jim
>>> Greg Byrd <gbyrd@xxxxxxxx> 6/5/07 1:09 PM >>> I have to say I'm also not 100% sold on model as metadata. It strikes me as the same discussion we had about whether metadata is just a set of attributes. Yes, but there's a semantic difference that might be important to the consumer. If I just said, "give me all the metadata about DigitalSubject X", I don't think I would expect to see the model of that type of DS. Would it help to simply extend IProperty to IModel (in the same way that we did for IMetadata)? Then all the update methods would be inherited, but we'd still have a different interface to convey the semantic difference. ...Greg Valery Kokhan wrote: > Hi Jim, > > I see one problem with intention to represent interfaces in .model > package using metadata. > > As you mentioned, metadata is a data that describes another data but I > have to notice that actually they describes data instances while > interfaces in the .model package describes data structures > (definitions). > > _______________________________________________ higgins-dev mailing list higgins-dev@xxxxxxxxxxx https://dev.eclipse.org/mailman/listinfo/higgins-dev |