Proposal to resolve info model issues

[Farrukh Najmi - JavaSoft East <Farrukh.Najmi@East.Sun.COM>]

Hi Team,

Len and I have been working to get our ideas to fit together. Here is the our
current thinking on the chanhes needed on the info model. Please see attached
GIF file for reference:

Based on Friday's discussion we had identified the need to model two types of
Registry Content (as meta data). Note names were given today:

1. IntrinsicObject: Sub-class of ManagedObject that provides metadata on 
content that is known to the Registry

2. ExtrinsicObject: Sub-class of ManagedObject that provides metadata on 
content that is not knownn intrinsicaly  to the Registry

For dictionary definition of intrinsic and extrinsic see:

	http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary

Note that not all Registry content known to Registry is derived from IntrinsicObject
since some have minimal metadata requirements and are derived from Object.

Note that:

-Object only has GUID attribute now.
-major and mindor version are now in Versionable
-ManagedObject has registryStatus, description and submission
-ExtrinsicObject have url, name, type and mimeType
-IntrinsicObject has no attributes identified so far

Please note that this is a joint proposal by Len and I and naturally we are
in agreement on this. There may be some details to iron out but there is a
strong desire and ability for us to work as a team and get through these issues
in teh next few week. 

Lets all work hard to make the Jan 12 drop dead deadline for all our Release 1
spec work to be submitted to QR so we can all be proud of what we have
accomplished.

--

Regards,
Len and Farrukh

object.gif