From: "David E Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
On Aug 5, 2008, at 2:37 PM, Jacques Le Roux wrote:
From: "David E Jones" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
It might be better to have an independent ID for the TerrestrialPosition
(like terrestrialPositionId) and have things point
to it rather than having it point to other things. In other words we would
add a terrestrialPositionId to the ContactMech
instead of putting a contactMechId on TerrestrialPosition. In that way
anything could point to it.
Yes and this is even simpler. I followed the PartyContactMech pattern because
I thought it was a best practise. But obviously
like that the scope will be wider.
This is something we should maybe discuss more, ie whether the
TerrestrialPosition should be a type of ContactMech or it's own
independent thing. I was thinking the independence might be better, and we
would have more control over what it is attached to.
In other words, the use patterns and relationships to other entities are a
little different than what is done with ContactMechs.
Still, if anyone thinks otherwise... please share.
Actually what I said above is not true. The scope will not be wider. You can get the same using the ContactMech pattern. It's only a
bit harder since you have to create a specific entity (like FacilityLocationContactMech) and make the association between the 2
other entities each time you want to relate a new entity (like say FacilityLocation). In the second case only one association to
TerrestrialPosition would be needed. So it's up to you guys, sometimes breaking the rules is good, sometimes it's not, we have to
really think about it ... before...
Jacques
