Re: FW: [psg.com #328] AutoReply: Containment Hierach and entPhysical Containedin

HI,

This is a real problem. I suggest that a paragraph be added to the
document that describes "containment hierarchy" (and provides
an example). And then all of the uses in the DESCRIPTION clauses
just say "containment hierarchy" and drop all mention of
object entPhysicalContainedIn." If this approach is not
desired, then use a phrase like "....on entities within its       
containment hierarchy. These are entities that specify this
entity as the value for object entPhysicalContainedIn directly
and indirectly."


At 01:44 PM 2/12/2004 -0500, Sharon Chisholm wrote:
>The following is the proposed resolution to entstate-328. The issue 
>will be considered closed pending the proposed edit being done.
>
>In the various object definitions replace phrases like
>
>"as defined by a value of
>               entPhysicalContainedIn that references this entity"
>
>With one like
>
>"as defined by the entPhysicalContainedIn object."
>
>Sharon
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] 
>Sent: Wednesday, February 11, 2004 12:56 PM
>To: Chisholm, Sharon [CAR:0S00:EXCH]
>Subject: [psg.com #328] AutoReply: Containment Hierach and
>entPhysicalContainedin
><clip>
>
>-------------------------------------------------------------------------
>Juergen Schoenwaelder [[email protected]]
>
>"5) Several description clauses refer to "entities within its
>   containment hierarchy" followed by a sentence which limits this to
>   the entities "having a value of entPhysicalContainedIn that refers
>   to this entity". This somehow excludes transitive containment. Is
>   this by intention or accident? I mean, if I have C contained in B
>   contained in A, then A still provides indirect service to C."
Regards,
/david t. perkins