[MOBY-dev] Cleaning up the Object ontology - Inheriting from base Object

[Paul Gordon]

I support Martin's position, but would add a caveat:  since we are all 
sharing the same ontology, it would be nice if no one hogged the generic 
words like "Person" and "DataBase" if they are specific to their 
services instead of generic objects representing any Person or 
DataBase.  Perhaps DutchPerson or DutchDatabase in your app Pieter?  
Well maybe not, but you get the idea... :-)

Right now in the registry if I send a generic object I get over a 
hundred services back, almost none of which will actually consume the 
object without dying a horrible death.  I think proper namespace 
restriction in service registration is a bigger issue than people 
creating new name-only ontology objects...

My CAN $0.02.

>Hi all,
>
>I'm with Martin here. I have quite a few Objects that inherit from  
>the base Object without having any HAS or HASA relationships. Most of  
>them are very generic things like for example "Program", "DataBase"  
>and "User". They can have different IDs and have different namespaces  
>depending on the service they are used for. And the namespace alone  
>is not enough. Within the same namespace I can have multiple things  
>which are only an ID, but one pointing to a user and another pointing  
>to a program and I think it's to be able to see the difference  
>directly from the name of the element instead of adding all kind of  
>child elements that only cause more overhead in XML parsing.
>
>Just my € 2c,
>
>Pi
>
>On 17-Feb-2006, at 1:19 AM, Martin Senger wrote:
>
>  
>
>>>Here is my position statement - please feel free to attack it or  
>>>support
>>>it:
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>   I am not going to attack it, and I am far away from supporting it.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>Statement:  Any Object that is registered as deriving from base  
>>>Object,
>>>without any HAS or HASA relationships, should be considered invalid.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>   My position is clear here, and without any heat in my heart (my  
>>heart
>>has already burned in the pre-xmas discussion you mentioned) I just  
>>state
>>that this is unacceptable for me.
>>
>>    
>>
>>>My proposal:  The Registry should trap attempts to register  
>>>Objects that
>>>derive from base Object without any additional syntactic  
>>>complexity, and
>>>refuse to register them.
>>>
>>>      
>>>
>>   Which would mean (IMO), at least, to loose quite a chunk of Biomoby
>>users and developers.
>>
>>   Martin
>>
>>-- 
>>Martin Senger
>>   email: martin.senger at gmail.com
>>   skype: martinsenger
>>consulting for:
>>   International Rice Research Institute
>>   Biometrics and Bioinformatics Unit
>>   DAPO BOX 7777, Metro Manila
>>   Philippines, phone: +63-2-580-5600 (ext.2324)
>>
>>
>>_______________________________________________
>>MOBY-dev mailing list
>>MOBY-dev at biomoby.org
>>http://biomoby.org/mailman/listinfo/moby-dev
>>    
>>
>
>
>Wageningen University and Research centre (WUR)
>Laboratory of Bioinformatics
>Transitorium (building 312) room 1034
>Dreijenlaan 3
>6703 HA Wageningen
>The Netherlands
>phone: 0317-483 060
>fax: 0317-483 584
>mobile: 06-143 66 783
>pieter.neerincx at wur.nl
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>MOBY-dev mailing list
>MOBY-dev at biomoby.org
>http://biomoby.org/mailman/listinfo/moby-dev
>  
>