Do not require the @internal@ ontology term descriptions and "name" on instances of internal types
Description
Activity
Thomas Beale May 19, 2015 at 11:07 AM
This is not an issue in ADL/AOM 2, but for ADL 1.x, I would propose to address this in ADL 1.6, where we currently think we would add the 'all nodes must have an id' rule.
Thomas Beale May 11, 2015 at 10:49 AM
Now Minor
Diego Bosca May 11, 2015 at 8:27 AM
Agree that is a little annoying, but I won't classify this as a 'major' issue.
We used to generate a default description for nodes, but not anymore. Name is automatically generated from class type but can also be removed.
In 1.4 seems to be tool dependent issue, and won't be an issue at all in 2
Pablo Pazos April 24, 2015 at 8:00 PM
Maybe a recommendation for tooling to not generate those nodes on in the terminology? That is the current behavior of the AE.
Thomas Beale April 5, 2015 at 10:38 AM
In ADL2, the rule is that all nodes have to have id-codes (at-codes in ADL 1.4) but not all id-codes need definitions in the terminology. Thus, these pseudo definitions disappear in ADL2. Not sure what the best remediation for ADL 1.4 is though.
Today, tools generate @internal@ names and descrptions in the archetype ontology for some nodes, if that is internal and woint be used in software, why having them in the archetype?
Also it makes XML instances more verbose with data that will not be used, e.g. <name><value>history</value></name>, if the class is a structure, the name won't be used for anything.