%META:TOPICINFO{author="GarryJolleyRogers" date="1259118871" format="1.1" version="1.9"}% %META:TOPICPARENT{name="ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09"}% ---+!! %TOPIC% It's no surprise that Object and Class consist of mostly a common thing with only a few small differences. In OOP languages this usually manifests itself by the fact that there is a Class Class, so that a Class is itself an object of something. The stuff that describes Class Class is thus exactly what is common to all Classes. BDI.SDD_ could probably be simplified if the commonality in Class and Object that occurs in 0.9 is typed and given a name, and both Class and Object are derived types from that. _UrClass_ might be a good name. -- Main.BobMorris - 27 Jan 2004 --- I have a problem to follow, it seems this is the answer to a discussion, rather than the start? I do not see any communality in BDI.SDD_ 0.9 between ClassNameConnectorType and DescribedObjectConnectorType, other than the one already inherited from the - much more general - ResourceConnectorBaseType. Can you clarify this discussion? -- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 09 Feb 2004 --- I close the discussion in the ClosedTopicSchemaDiscussionSDD09 topic. -- [[Main.GregorHagedorn][Gregor Hagedorn]] - 1 May 2004 %META:TOPICMOVED{by="GregorHagedorn" date="1085758022" from="SDD.DeadTopicObjectsNotMuchDifferentFromClasses" to="SDD.ClosedTopicObjectsNotMuchDifferentFromClasses"}%