David's definition didn't (at least at the surface) match my understanding. My understanding is that "Document" is a collection of elements with no presumption of shared context, it's just a transport mechanism. A "ContextualCollection" implies that the elements in it have shared context, for example, the files in a package, or the contents of a bill of materials.
"Document" wasn't the preferred term from 3T-SBOM members, but as part of combining efforts it was deemed an acceptable name given SPDX's past usage of it. In SPDX 2.2 documents don't require any shared context for elements in the document, there may be assumed shared context but it's not a requirement of the specification. On Wed, Sep 22, 2021 at 1:03 PM Nisha Kumar <nis...@vmware.com> wrote: > This discussion thread is for Question 1 of the list of questions William > started: > * Adding an abstract Collection class as the superclass of Document and > ContextualCollection simplified the model, are we comfortable keeping that? > > As I understand it, a "collection" is a set of unrelated elements and a > "ContextualCollection" is a set of related elements. But it looks like > David had a different understanding: > * Contextual is a set of related elements - the collection is created as a > unit and elements contained in the collection are always part of the > collection even when referenced by individual IRI. The collection Element > and its contained Elements are created at the same instant by the same > creator, regardless of whether any creation properties are serialized in > the Elements. > * Non-contextual is a collection that does not define any Elements. The > Elements were created before the collection, are copied into the > collection, and are unchanged whether the collection exists or not. > > From the above definition it seems to me that the difference between > "contextual" and "not contextual" has to do with the timestamp of the > collection. Did I understand this correctly? > > If yes, the concept sounds a lot like an instance of an object vs a > collection of (still related) objects a la OOP. > > I'm personally for including both concepts of "instant collection" and > "assembled collection" as long as the concepts are clearly defined, as > David mentioned here: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4201 > > > > > > -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=- Links: You receive all messages sent to this group. View/Reply Online (#4203): https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/message/4203 Mute This Topic: https://lists.spdx.org/mt/85799075/21656 Group Owner: spdx-tech+ow...@lists.spdx.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.spdx.org/g/Spdx-tech/unsub [arch...@mail-archive.com] -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
