Daniel Hagerty wrote on 04/12/2005 11:17 AM:
> > Each of these types has well-defined semantics (interfaces can be
> > connected to one or more interfaces via connnections; cards can be
> > interchanged in slots, etc.) that are true despite vendor or model
> > differences.
>
> What is this ontology in which you define your new types within,
> and how does it limit you?
That's the point: the ontology, if it deals with primitive networking
concepts, does not impose limits on the taxonomy.
So, in the preceeding example, the ontology of the metadata that
defines our element types includes concepts of location and
relationship such as "connects to", "belongs in", "max parents",
"uniqueness scope", "name sequencing", "inherits attributes from", etc.
If a new concept needs to be added, then the ontology is merely
extended to support the new semantics. New properties can be added to
the parser definition file and be compiled to the schema without DB
modification; implementation of the constraints imposed by the new
imperatives is the only required change to the software.
New containers, element types, element implementations and instances
can all be created withing the existing vocabulary. It's been about 2
years since the last time I came up with a good reason to extend the
ontology.
Thanks,
--kirby
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
