Notice: this Wiki will be going read only early in 2024 and edits will no longer be possible. Please see: https://gitlab.eclipse.org/eclipsefdn/helpdesk/-/wikis/Wiki-shutdown-plan for the plan.
Difference between revisions of "Dereferencing Complex Values Backlog"
(+comments from Drummond) |
|||
| Line 17: | Line 17: | ||
== Questions/Observations == | == Questions/Observations == | ||
| − | * | + | |
| + | === Jim === | ||
| + | * Would all of these 'complex attr values represented as IEntitys' have identifiers? | ||
** It seems like a good thing for cases where you want to share one across different identities. For example, my wife and I have the same postal address so it'd be nice to share the same complex attr val for that. | ** It seems like a good thing for cases where you want to share one across different identities. For example, my wife and I have the same postal address so it'd be nice to share the same complex attr val for that. | ||
*** Hmm, people might see the utility in that and want something similar for simple attributes as well | *** Hmm, people might see the utility in that and want something similar for simple attributes as well | ||
| − | * | + | * I hate to admit it, but if we make attributes act just like entities, it makes a good case for calling things something more generic like Node or Element. |
| + | |||
| + | === Drummond === | ||
| + | * I agree. For example, in XDI, the value of an attribute can be a literal, a reference to another Entity, or a reference to the value of another Attribute (of that Entity or a different Entity). It seems IdAS should have the same options. | ||
| + | * However, doesn't an Attribute whose value references another Entity become a Relation? | ||
| + | * Lastly, RE Jim's terminology point, I agree this capability emphasizes using the most general term for nodes in the graph. That's why I favored the term Node. Interestingly, given that we already use Attribute, for the first time I could make sense of using Element. (I have always feared confusion with XML, but if we ended out using both Element and Attribute, at least we'd have a parallel universe.) | ||
== See Also == | == See Also == | ||
* [[IdAS Backlog]] | * [[IdAS Backlog]] | ||
Revision as of 14:50, 13 March 2008
About
This page describes a proposed change to the IdAP API and the IContext SPI. This page was created to support a discussion.
Proposal
- We change the IdAS API and the IContext SPI to return IEntity implementations
- In other words, eliminate IComplexValue and replace it with IEntity
Examples...
this: IComplexAttrValue IAttribute.addComplexValue(URI dataType) becomes: IEntity IAttribute.addComplexValue(IEntity) or maybe: IEntity IAttribute.addEntityValue(IEntity)
IComplexAttrValue <-- goes away
Questions/Observations
Jim
- Would all of these 'complex attr values represented as IEntitys' have identifiers?
- It seems like a good thing for cases where you want to share one across different identities. For example, my wife and I have the same postal address so it'd be nice to share the same complex attr val for that.
- Hmm, people might see the utility in that and want something similar for simple attributes as well
- It seems like a good thing for cases where you want to share one across different identities. For example, my wife and I have the same postal address so it'd be nice to share the same complex attr val for that.
- I hate to admit it, but if we make attributes act just like entities, it makes a good case for calling things something more generic like Node or Element.
Drummond
- I agree. For example, in XDI, the value of an attribute can be a literal, a reference to another Entity, or a reference to the value of another Attribute (of that Entity or a different Entity). It seems IdAS should have the same options.
- However, doesn't an Attribute whose value references another Entity become a Relation?
- Lastly, RE Jim's terminology point, I agree this capability emphasizes using the most general term for nodes in the graph. That's why I favored the term Node. Interestingly, given that we already use Attribute, for the first time I could make sense of using Element. (I have always feared confusion with XML, but if we ended out using both Element and Attribute, at least we'd have a parallel universe.)