Heath Frankel schreef: > Bert, > Paths are unique, they must be. > I thought so too, that is why it seemed more logical to me to store the path, instead of the archetype_node_id in the locatable/pathable But I read in the Architecture Overview section 11.2.4 that even paths are not guaranteed uniquely, for that purpose, the name-attribute of a node can be used.
I have never seen an archetype which uses the name-attribute of a node. The ADL-example in the document is not very clear. When I look in the ADL-specs, part 5.3.6, it states more or less in contradiction to the above mentioned document, a path must be unambiguous, and that this is achieved by different archetype_node_id's So not the archetype_node_id's have to be unique, but the path must be. So we come to another function of the archetype_node_id > The archetype node ID provides you a link to the ontology to give you the > semantics, this is fundamental to Archetypes. > That is true, I thought of that, but that is no reason to store them in the Locatable/pathable-object. They can not identify the location in an archetype of a data-object. The only reason for existence I can think of and you mention, is in the archetype itself. This all does not seem logically to me, I can live with that, but it wonders me, I can misunderstand: What are the design thoughts behind? Thanks Bert
