I object to the objection over object -> RE: Proposal to resolve infomodel issues

["Nieman, Scott" <Scott.Nieman@NorstanConsulting.com>]

I still do NOT fully understand the objection over the object class or
ManagedObject.

I follow the philosophy that everything and anything is an object.  I heard
"behaviour" being a factor in this on the last teleconference, plus a
product-based issue. 

1) An object CAN have behaviour, but it does not mandate that is HAS
behaviour.  A rock is an object and has no behaviour.  To insist that
objects have behaviour forces the rock to have an operation such as
throwMe() which is nonsense.

2) I do not believe that it really conflicts with any programming model if
it is properly namespaced. ebxml.registry.object whatever.

I also argued that objects can contain other objects, which to me is a
critical concept.

I would like a vote to see if there a consensus to any change to this.  I
vote no change!  

If I am missing a major point, please help clarify this position.  I do not
want too many cycles put on this topic.

Scott

>> BTW What do folks think of renaming Object to Identifiable? The idea is
to factor out behaviour such as Identifiable Versionable etc. as separate
classes so that behaviour can be added at any level. The Identifiable class
would still have the GUID attribute as its only attribute. This may
partially mitigate Scott H's concern about Object.