- From: José Manuel Cantera Fonseca <jmcf@tid.es>
- Date: Tue, 26 Feb 2008 18:15:28 +0100
- To: Jo Rabin <jrabin@mtld.mobi>
- Cc: "public-ddwg@w3.org" <public-ddwg@w3.org>
As a way of simplifying the interface I would avoid in these convenience
methods that receive strings as parameters to pass any kind of IRI, i.e.
if someone want to ask something about an aspect or property that are
not in the default vocabulary he will need to use the SimplePropertyRef
class, so the methods would be:
*public* SimplePropertyValues
getSimplePropertyValues(SimpleEvidence evidence)
*throws* SystemException;
*public* SimplePropertyValues
getSimplePropertyValues(SimpleEvidence evidence,
String aspectName) *throws* NameException,
SystemException;
*public* SimplePropertyValues
getSimplePropertyValues(SimpleEvidence evidence,
SimplePropertyRef[] properties) *throws* NameException,
SystemException;
The same would apply for getting a property value i.e. with the string
convenience methods you will only be allowed to ask things in the
default vocabulary and if you want to go to another voc you will need to
instantiate a SimplePropertyRef.
This is the same approach that we took in Boston F2F for the fast food
methods, so we have a previous resolution that applies here
Best Regards
Jo Rabin escribió:
>
> At the moment we have 4 overloaded calls:
>
>
>
> *public* SimplePropertyValues
> getSimplePropertyValues(SimpleEvidence evidence)
>
> *throws* SystemException;
>
>
>
> *public* SimplePropertyValues
> getSimplePropertyValues(SimpleEvidence evidence,
>
> String aspectIRI, String aspectName) *throws*
> NameException,
>
> SystemException;
>
>
>
> *public* SimplePropertyValues
> getSimplePropertyValues(SimpleEvidence evidence,
>
> String aspectName) *throws* NameException,
> SystemException;
>
>
>
> *public* SimplePropertyValues
> getSimplePropertyValues(SimpleEvidence evidence,
>
> SimplePropertyRef[] properties) *throws* NameException,
>
> SystemException;
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I think it would be better if the first 3 were called
> getKnownSimplePropertyValues since the semantic is different from the
> following which returns values for all specified propoerties?
>
>
>
> Any views before I post an updated interface definition?
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
>
Received on Tuesday, 26 February 2008 17:13:46 UTC