Re: Strange use of 'offset' as a settable RM attribute

Probably these kinds of constraints should be assertions instead. This would allow to constrain both the attributes and define assertions on the functions. 2016-02-15 11:25 GMT+01:00 Sebastian Garde < sebastian.ga...@oceaninformatics.com>: > We have been through this a long time ago I think, with

RE: Strange use of 'offset' as a settable RM attribute

We have been through this a long time ago I think, with Koray having the exact question and opinion I had. The downside if you don't allow this kind of constraint(!) on functional attributes in archetypes, here you cannot constrain the other two (real) attributes when modelling an archetype eit

Re: Strange use of 'offset' as a settable RM attribute

On 12/02/2016 04:29, Koray Atalag wrote: Hi, We noted it is possible to set values from AE/TD to a RM attribute named “offset” In the specs (looked at >1.0.1) it is not a regular att

RE: Strange use of 'offset' as a settable RM attribute

Thanks Heath, Setting a value constraint makes sense - do you allow negative offset? We have some time series observation data where offset is negative. In practice it doesn't make much sense but in reality it exists. I can also imagine the sort of problems you may be facing - does this mean we