[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: Restricting relationship types to node types and node types with capability types.
Chris, Thanks for taking the time on this. There is nothing wrong with what you have done here. My problem occurred when expanding this pattern to larder numbers of extension nodes: There will be many node_types derived_from MetricABE in the same way as you have done for MetricDefinition.
Many pairs of these derived node types will have a relationship between them and that relationship has its own name.
In order to create all those relationships with different names, there will many relationship_types derived_from NodeIsExtendedBy in the same way as you have done for MetricDefinitionMeasures.
I will need to restrict the use of each of these relationship types to the specific pair of node_types which use that name.
You have achieved that using the MetricDefinitionExtention capability type. My point is that all these capabilities would be defined only for this job which adds about 30% more lines to the template.
I could avoid all that if a revised syntax allowed me to restrict the application of the relationships by referencing the node_type rather than referencing a capability_type within the node type. Regards
Paul Jordan This email contains information from BT that might be privileged or confidential. And it's
only meant for the person above. If that's not you, we're sorry - we must have sent it to you by mistake. Please email us to let us know, and don't copy or forward it to anyone else. Thanks. We monitor our email systems and may record all our emails. From: Chris Lauwers <lauwers@ubicity.com>
Hi Paul, Iâm attaching a very rudimentary TOSCA template that starts to implement your pattern for the SID Metric ABE. It shows how relationship types can be refined by limiting valid_target_types to derived types of the NodeExtension
capability type. Iâd love to work with you to flesh this out further if youâre interested. Thanks, Chris From: Chris Lauwers
Thanks Paul, weâll take this up for review. In the meantime, a couple of additional comments:
Thanks again for all your helpful feedback. Chris From:
tosca-comment@lists.oasis-open.org <tosca-comment@lists.oasis-open.org>
On Behalf Of paul.m.jordan@bt.com At present relationship type definitions may contain a restriction to limit their application to node types which contain one or more of the specified capability types. Currently the name of this keyword is valid_target_types which is somewhat
inaccurate and could be confusing. Furthermore I have a pattern for node extension which would benefit from an additional limitation on relationship types so that they were only applicable to specified node types. Therefore I propose that relationship type definition is amended as follows:
If both valid_target_node_types and valid_target_node_capabilities are specified then they would be ANDed, i.e. the relationship type would be applicable only to a nodes of the specified type if it had one or more of the specified capabilities.
Paul Jordan This email contains information from BT that might be privileged or confidential. And it's
only meant for the person above. If that's not you, we're sorry - we must have sent it to you by mistake. Please email us to let us know, and don't copy or forward it to anyone else. Thanks. We monitor our email systems and may record all our emails. |
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]