I like the idea of having association to the TerrestrialPosition I believe it gives more flexibility. that way the association carries both the entities IDs and save adding pointers to other entities. having an enumerated type, in the association would allow indexing.
David E Jones sent the following on 8/5/2008 2:46 PM: > > 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. > > -David > > > >
