Issue 9147: Container and owningProperty (mof2core-rtf)
Source: Honeywell (Mr. David Oglesby, david.oglesby(at)honeywell.com)
Nature: Uncategorized Issue
Severity: 
Summary: On an Object, container() is defined as
result = self.get(self.owningProperty())
where owningProperty() is defined as
result = self.allProperties->select(op| op.isComposite and self.get(op)
<> null)


If I read this correctly, the container of an object is the value of a
property on that object such that isComposite on the property is true
and the value of the property on the object is not null.


How is that not backwards? The value of an object's composite properties
are the objects it *contains*. Don't we want (op|
op.opposite.isComposite and self.get(op) <> null)?
Resolution: see below
Revised Text: Section 15.8, additional Operations [4]
Change definition of owningProperty as follows:

post: result = self.allProperties->select(op| op.opposite <> null and op.opposite.isComposite and self.get(op)<> null)

Actions taken:
November 10, 2005: received issue
April 25, 2011: closed issue
Discussion: 

End of Annotations:=====
ubject: Container and owningProperty
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 15:31:01 -0600
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Container and owningProperty
Thread-Index: AcXmPgv7633ZRaH2SLWOOvAQlZU1ww==
From: "Oglesby, David  \(MN65\)" <David.Oglesby@honeywell.com>
To: <mof2core-rtf@omg.org>
X-OriginalArrivalTime: 10 Nov 2005 21:31:35.0700 (UTC) FILETIME=[2077A540:01C5E63E]
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id jAALRx37012511


On an Object, container() is defined as
result = self.get(self.owningProperty())
where owningProperty() is defined as
result = self.allProperties->select(op| op.isComposite and self.get(op)
<> null)


If I read this correctly, the container of an object is the value of a
property on that object such that isComposite on the property is true
and the value of the property on the object is not null.


How is that not backwards? The value of an object's composite properties
are the objects it *contains*. Don't we want (op|


Subject: RE: Container and owningProperty
Date: Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:59:09 -0800
X-MS-Has-Attach: 
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator: 
Thread-Topic: Container and owningProperty
Thread-Index: AcXmPgv7633ZRaH2SLWOOvAQlZU1wwAVv05Q
From: "Pete Rivett" <pete.rivett@adaptive.com>
To: "Oglesby, David  \(MN65\)" <David.Oglesby@honeywell.com>,
        <mof2core-rtf@omg.org>, <issues@omg.org>
X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by amethyst.omg.org id jAB7t3oq017189


Well spotted - this needs to be given an issue number and fixed.


Pete



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Oglesby, David (MN65) [mailto:David.Oglesby@honeywell.com] 
> Sent: Thursday, November 10, 2005 10:31 PM
> To: mof2core-rtf@omg.org
> Subject: Container and owningProperty
> 
> On an Object, container() is defined as
> result = self.get(self.owningProperty())
> where owningProperty() is defined as
> result = self.allProperties->select(op| op.isComposite and 
> self.get(op)
> <> null)
> 
> If I read this correctly, the container of an object is the value of a
> property on that object such that isComposite on the property is true
> and the value of the property on the object is not null.
> 
> How is that not backwards? The value of an object's composite 
> properties
> are the objects it *contains*. Don't we want (op|
> op.opposite.isComposite and self.get(op) <> null)?
op.opposite.isComposite and self.get(op) <> null)?