| Re: Some problems with/questions about the infrastructure schema... [message #89 is a reply to message #85] |
Fri, 18 June 2004 14:08  |
Matthias Hengartner
Messages: 57
Registered: August 2003
|
Member |
|
|
Hello,
For the moment I have only one comment regarding the discussion around the
serveral ID-attributes.
> Hmmm, I would prefer the opposite syntax. For example, I would
> appreciate a common attribute "elemID" for all elements. Right now, we
> have "ID", "elemID", "ocpID", "connectionID", etc. "elemID" is used in
> many children of <trackData>, why not everywhere?
At least the attributes "ocpID" and "trackID" ar meant to be "close to
reality", so they should represent the identifiers which are also used in
reality. I don't know which elements of <trackData> and <trackTopology> do
have also such an identifier in practice, but certainly not all of them
(e.g. <trackBegin>/<trackEnd>, probably also <crossSection> have none).
So we have to deal with different types of IDs.
Further there was a discussion about globally unique IDs (GUIDs), which has
still not come to an definite end.
Roughly, there are two possibilities:
1. We introduce GUIDs.
Then I think we should leave "real-ID-attributes" like ocpID and trackID
(and keep also this names) and discard other ID-attributes with no reference
to reality.
2. We do not introduce GUIDs.
So we surely keep the ID-attributes. And I think we should also keep the
naming of most of them. Personally, I find it a little confusing to have a
connectionID and not an elemID in a <bufferstop>-element.
So far for the moment.
Have a nice weekend!
Matthias Hengartner
|
|
|
|
Members
Search
Help
Login
Home
