|
yeah, but are those in the same context?
>>> Michael McIntosh <mikemci@xxxxxxxxxx> 09/17/08 12:14 PM >>>
higgins-dev-bounces@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 09/17/2008 10:26:05 AM:
>
> Please respond to "Higgins \(Trust Framework\) Project developer discussions"
>
> I have added my thoughts here:
> http://wiki.eclipse.org/EntityId_Requirements
>
> Here is a summary of my position (expressed in more detail on the wiki page):
> I am open to supporting the “moral equivalent” of 0..n EntityIds
> that Tony desires but I need someone to present at least one real-
> world use-case to motivate it (I’ve not been able to come up with one).
> By “moral equivalent” I mean:
> 0..1 “canonical” EntityId. This EntityId is unique AT LEAST within
> the scope of its containing Context. This EntityId MUST be immutable.
> 0..n synonyms. These are represented as 0..n values of a new defined
> Attribute type called something like higgins:synonym
In Entity that represents me, I can have AT LEAST the following EntityIds:
0: SSN:123-45-6789
1: IBM Employee Id: ABCDEF
| 