You signed in with another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You signed out in another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.You switched accounts on another tab or window. Reload to refresh your session.Dismiss alert
Currently, structured patterns are hard-coded at both the reference source (some slots) and the reference target (the id slot of some class). This creates an opportunity for the two to fall out of sync.
I propose only defining them at the reference target, and not at the reference source; and then, programmatically constructing the pattern for the reference source at schema compilation time.
The algorithm (in pseudocode) I have in mind is:
# Combine sub-patterns into a single pattern, with "OR" operators.existing_pattern=""fortarget_class_definitioninrange:
target_class_id_pattern=target_class_definition.id_slot_definition.patternexisting_pattern=f"{existing_pattern}|{target_class_id_pattern}"source_slot_definition.pattern=existing_pattern
During today's metadata meeting, several team members expressed concerns about this approach: It depends upon the range defined on the referring slot being accurate and specific (i.e. sufficiently constrained).
Currently, structured patterns are hard-coded at both the reference source (some slots) and the reference target (the
id
slot of some class). This creates an opportunity for the two to fall out of sync.I propose only defining them at the reference target, and not at the reference source; and then, programmatically constructing the pattern for the reference source at schema compilation time.
The algorithm (in pseudocode) I have in mind is:
CC: @turbomam
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: