From: David Z. <dav...@gm...> - 2005-08-25 19:41:35
|
On 8/25/05, Jody Garnett <jga...@re...> wrote: > Justin Deoliveira wrote: >=20 > > Jody and myself walked through Ian's example and came up with the > > following summary. Jody will reiterate tommorow. > > > > With the seperation of schema/validation from type, the gml example > > from before looks the attached diagram. > > > > The thing to note from the diagram is that since the schema > > information is seperated out, the river feature type just becomes > > another complex attribute type, and becomes available for reuse. > > > > Justin >=20 > I do think we are all moving in the same direction - a need of a > separation between Content, Reference and Type. >=20 > Java: > - Content: Object > - Reference: Field > - Type: Class >=20 > GeoTools > -Content: Object, Array, Feature, FeatureCollection > - Reference: AttributeType > - Type: FeatureType >=20 > Proposal: Aside from the obvious 'Complex' is a overused noun ... what is it in you proposal. This still just looks like a rename to me. Is there an actual plan as to what this would look like (am I missing one of the many links floating around?)? I am still in favor of gabrial's email earlier ... it's alot simpler.=20 Oh, and so far as 'Type' goes ... well there are alot of classes called that too, which one are you refering to ... (same applies if this referes to a concept too). > - Content: Object, Complex, Feature, FeatureCollection > - Reference: Schema > - Type: Type, ComplexType, FeatureType, FeatureCollectionType >=20 > The page where I am trying to record this discussion is here: > -<http://docs.codehaus.org/display/GEOTOOLS/Feature+Model+Design#FeatureM= odelDesign-complex> >=20 Page is blank ... > I hope this discussion helps, Well ... it actualy confused me ...=20 David > Jody > |