[cap-talk] Objects and Facets

[Mark Miller]

On 8/7/06, Charles Landau <clandau at macslab.com> wrote:
> This sounds just like the "no facet" view I described. It's great to
> know we're in agreement on this.

> >For descriptive purposes, we often want to aggregate several objects into one
> >composite. Such aggregation is purely subjective.
>
> We are in complete agreement.

Wonderful!


>
> >In KeyKOS, a natural
> >descriptive aggregate for many purposes is the process (domain) together with
> >all the keys which designate the root node of that process (all start keys,
> >domain key, node key).
>
> Now I'm confused. A composite is an aggregation of objects, but keys
> are not objects, so why do you include those keys in the composite? I
> think you mean, all the objects designated by those keys.

Yes.


> In fact I think it would be correct to just say that the composite is
> all the objects designated by those keys, and omit the phrase "the
> process (domain) together with" above. The process alone isn't a
> well-defined object; it would work as a name for this composite.

Agreed.


> >Given some descriptive composite, those objects within
> >the composite which are potentially designatable from outside the composite
> >are facets of the composite.
>
> For example, a start key with a particular facet id, which is outside
> the composite, designates an object in the composite and is a facet
> of the composite.

Yes.


> Unfortunately, we need some better terminology for describing
> composites, which is why many people are using the term "object" when
> they mean composite.

David's suggestion of "component" isn't bad. I haven't thought of
anything better.


-- 
Text by me above is hereby placed in the public domain

    Cheers,
    --MarkM