Philosophy of basic Q
patrick.dowler at nrc-cnrc.gc.ca
Tue May 11 09:40:28 PDT 2004
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
> > "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....
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.)
More information about the dm