RE: Aggregate Attributes

["Durham, David" <david.durham@intel.com>]

Hi Randy,
I'm not sure I follow why you can't reconcile these two. 4.1.27 says
non-divisible grouping, 4.1.28 says you can compose larger constructs out of
them. It says nothing about dividing up their attributes. Where's the
conflict?

C={a,b}
D={C,e}={a,b,e}

-Dave

> -----Original Message-----
> From: rpresuhn-lists@dorothy.bmc.com
> 
> 
> Hi -
> 
> > From: Frank Strauss <strauss@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>
> ..
> > The descriptions of attribute groups and containment now say:
> > 
> > 4.1.27:
> >    Description: An attribute group is a non-divisible, extensible
> >       grouping of attributes that are meaningful together.  
> It can be
> >       reused as the type of attributes in other attribute 
> groups (see
> >       also Section 4.1.28).  This is similar to `structs' in C or
> >       `classes' in Java.
> > 
> > 4.1.28:
> >    Description: SMIng must provide support for the creation of new
> >       attribute groups from attributes of more basic types and
> >       potentially other attribute groups.
> ..
> 
> These appear to be in conflict.  I can't reconcile the "non-divisble"
> in 4.1.27 with the process of composition described in 4.1.28.
> 
> (Also, it still bugs me that this definition of "attribute group"
> bears little resemblance to the concept as defined in X.720, which
> defines "attribute group" as "a group of attributes which have
> been given a single identifier for ease of access.")
> 
>  ------------------------------------------------------
>  Randy Presuhn          BMC Software, Inc.  1-3141
>  randy_presuhn@bmc.com  2141 North First Street
>  Tel: +1 408 546-1006   San José, California 95131  USA
>  ------------------------------------------------------
>  My opinions and BMC's are independent variables.
>  ------------------------------------------------------
> 
>