[Cosmo-dev] sharing update 12/19

Phillip J. Eby pje at telecommunity.com
Wed Dec 20 09:28:43 PST 2006


At 08:32 AM 12/20/2006 -0800, Morgen Sagen wrote:

>On Dec 19, 2006, at 4:52 PM, Phillip J. Eby wrote:
>
>>(I should qualify the following statements by saying that I'm going
>>off of the *examples* in the EimmlSpec page, not the actual schema
>>docs.)
>>
>>
>>At 04:07 PM 12/19/2006 -0800, Brian Moseley wrote:
>>>i've finished updating the eimml spec based on my conversations with
>>>morgen and grant from last week and today:
>>>
>>><http://wiki.osafoundation.org/bin/view/Projects/EimmlSpec>
>>
>>eim:uuid is not a universal attribute and shouldn't be namespace- 
>>prefixed on either recordsets or records.  EIM itself has no native
>>notion of the concept of a UUID for records; it's just another
>>field, that might happen to be named uuid, and is unrelated in any
>>way to other records that might have an attribute named 'uuid'.
>
>Here is an example of what my serializer code now understands.  I
>took bcm's sample and moved each record's uuid attribute into a sub- 
>element (since for each record, the uuid is just another field, that
>also happens to be part of the primary key).  I left the recordset
>uuid attribute as is because in truly does represent all records
>corresponding to a specific item.

Right; this is the main difference I wanted to point out.  The EimmlSpec 
page has eim:uuid attributes on the record elements as well as the 
recordset element, but the one on the recordset is the only one with a 
fixed item association, and thus the one that should be used to determine 
what item the records are associated with.

I see you've also changed to calling the recordset-level attribute 
"eim:uuid", which isn't necessary (because the item uuid can only occur on 
an eim:records element), but doesn't hurt anything either, except perhaps 
understanding.  The only bit that's a problem in the EimmlSpec example is 
that this attribute *also* appears at the record level, where it can't be 
put by Chandler unless it's just duplicating the value from the eim:records 
element.



More information about the cosmo-dev mailing list