On Tuesday 11 May 2004 08:51, Martin @ ROE wrote:
> Brian Thomas wrote:
> > Well, my concept of BasicQ (and I don't think I'm alone on this)
> > is that it was for _holding a single value_, not to make
>
> something
>
> > "really simple".
>
> In that case can we change the name to SingleQuantity? There's not
> enough distinction between 'Core' and 'Basic'!
The correct term for it is "atomic" which is what Gerard and I used in the much maligned and misunderstood "unified domain model for astronomy" :-) But I got voted down on having AtomicQuantity in the current doc in favour of "more friendly and less CS-ey" terminology.
Also, no one seems to have noticed that CoreQ allows for either arrays or components (parent-child structure) BUT NOT BOTH at the same time!!!
I also argued unsuccessfully that these two kinds of things should be separate, which I why (way back last fall after adass) I proposed AtomicQuantity, ArrayQuantity, and CompositeQuantity as 3 sibling types (the domain model didn't have ArrayQuantity). But that eventually got shot down in favour of cramming several distinct concepts together....
-- Patrick Dowler Tel/Tél: (250) 363-6914 | fax/télécopieur: (250) 363-0045 Canadian Astronomy Data Centre | Centre canadien de donnees astronomiques National Research Council Canada | Conseil national de recherches Canada Government of Canada | Gouvernement du Canada 5071 West Saanich Road | 5071, chemin West Saanich Victoria, BC | Victoria (C.-B.)Received on 2004-05-11Z16:40:55