Home - News ( United States | United Kingdom | Italy | Germany ) - Football scores

Showing content from https://github.com/w3c/poe/issues/206 below:

Define Atomic and Compound Constraint as subclasses · Issue #206 · w3c/poe · GitHub

• Pricing

The IM defines for the 2.6 Constraint Class an Atomic Constraint and a Compound Constraint.
Each of them has different sets of usable properties and properties have different rules for their use - but they are not defined as subclasses of the Constraint Class.
As e.g. the Policy Class has the sub-classes of Set, Offer and Agreement (and possibly more) providing different sets of properties with different cardinalities and also the subclasses of the Rule Class have different sets of properties I suggest to define also for this context

• the Constraint Class with a shared set of properties (leftOperand, operator, rightOperand)
• Atomic Constraint Class as subclass, with a specific set of additional properties (rightOperandReference, dataType, unit, status)
• Compound Constraint Class as subclass, with a limitation of the use of the operands and specific set of applicable operator values (as listed in 2.6.2)

Note: the definition of the constraint property of the Rule Class does not require a change as it allows the Constraint Class (and its subclasses) as object.

You can’t perform that action at this time.

RetroSearch is an open source project built by @garambo | Open a GitHub Issue

Search and Browse the WWW like it's 1997 | Search results from DuckDuckGo

HTML: 3.2 | Encoding: UTF-8 | Version: 0.7.3