Hi Zam! :-) I was merely trying to keep most of the same semantic power in the change suggestion as when the abstract ITEM_STRUCTURE (that subsumed ITEM_SINGLE, ITEM_TREE etc) was used rather than ITEM_TREE in various places in the RM model. But you might be completely correct that it would be better to point to CLUSTER rather than it's abstract superclass ITEM in some or perhaps even all places in the model where ITEM_STRUCTURE is used today. I guess other people on the list will have additional good ideas about this.
Did you have any more info (or link) regarding the "pivot" semantics/requirements by the way? Best regards, Erik(!) Sundvall erik.sundvall at liu.se http://www.imt.liu.se/~erisu/? Tel: +46-13-286733 On Mon, Nov 15, 2010 at 22:29, Sam Heard <sam.heard at oceaninformatics.com> wrote: > Hi Eric > > I would always use CLUSTER rather than ITEM for the data and other features > in other classes. The alternative is to have far more versions of archetypes > as if you allow element at this point you have to version when cluster is > necessary (which you could argue it always will be at some time in the > future). > > Cheers, Sam
