- 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