confused by MSE is it moose or mse?

> And if this is MSE why Fame has property tag with MSE... instead of FM?
>
> Then I do not understand why this is MSEProperty and not MSEPackage: in that case.
> Why do we have package: and not MSEPackage: (or FMPackage: and FMProperty:
>
> Stef
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> Hi,
>
> I am happy that finally someone would like to have a dialog about these issues :).
>
> The idea was to name it MSE because this was the name of the format. But, I also wanted before to name it FM3.
>
> Regarding the use of <package:>, the idea was that this is just an add-on to another annotation. For example, if you have a <MSEClass:> then you can optionally add a <package:> that is interpreted in the context of the defined <MSEClass:>.
>
> The problem with this approach is that they use common names that pollute the overall pragma space (given that pragmas are global). So, I would prefix package: with FM3Package:.
>
> Actually, there are a couple of more pragmas used that should be renamed as well:
> - <multivalued>
> - <derived>
> - <container>
>
> Cheers,
> Doru

>
> On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am happy that finally someone would like to have a dialog about these issues :).
>>
>> The idea was to name it MSE because this was the name of the format. But, I also wanted before to name it FM3.
>>
>> Regarding the use of <package:>, the idea was that this is just an add-on to another annotation. For example, if you have a <MSEClass:> then you can optionally add a <package:> that is interpreted in the context of the defined <MSEClass:>.
>>
>> The problem with this approach is that they use common names that pollute the overall pragma space (given that pragmas are global). So, I would prefix package: with FM3Package:.
>>
>> Actually, there are a couple of more pragmas used that should be renamed as well:
>> - <multivalued>
>> - <derived>
>> - <container>
>>
>> Cheers,
>> Doru
>
> Ok let us fix them all.
> So what is your proposal?
>
> I would do <FM everything> for the main entity
> FMClass
> FMPackage
> FMProperty
>
> and <derived....
>
> Tell me what you think.
> Stef
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev

> Yes, only it should be FM3 instead of FM.
>
> Doru
>
>
> On 24 Sep 2011, at 10:15, Stéphane Ducasse wrote:
>
>>
>> On Sep 24, 2011, at 9:57 AM, Tudor Girba wrote:
>>
>>> Hi,
>>>
>>> I am happy that finally someone would like to have a dialog about these issues :).
>>>
>>> The idea was to name it MSE because this was the name of the format. But, I also wanted before to name it FM3.
>>>
>>> Regarding the use of <package:>, the idea was that this is just an add-on to another annotation. For example, if you have a <MSEClass:> then you can optionally add a <package:> that is interpreted in the context of the defined <MSEClass:>.
>>>
>>> The problem with this approach is that they use common names that pollute the overall pragma space (given that pragmas are global). So, I would prefix package: with FM3Package:.
>>>
>>> Actually, there are a couple of more pragmas used that should be renamed as well:
>>> - <multivalued>
>>> - <derived>
>>> - <container>
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Doru
>>
>> Ok let us fix them all.
>> So what is your proposal?
>>
>> I would do <FM everything> for the main entity
>> FMClass
>> FMPackage
>> FMProperty
>>
>> and <derived....
>>
>> Tell me what you think.
>> Stef
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Moose-dev mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev
>
> --
> www.tudorgirba.com
>
> "Every successful trip needs a suitable vehicle."
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Moose-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://www.iam.unibe.ch/mailman/listinfo/moose-dev