[Date Prev][Date Next]
[Chronological]
[Thread]
[Top]
Re: SUBCLASSING, again
Hi Kurt!
Responses in-line.
Thanks,
Kathy
"Kurt D. Zeilenga" wrote:
> At 06:56 PM 2/11/2004, Kathleen Dally wrote:
> >I would have no trouble deleting the sentence from Models, section
> >2.4.3:
> > " Auxiliary object classes cannot subclass structural object
> >classes."
>
> Even though the model makes no sense in face of such
> constructions?
kd: I agree that this seems nonsensical. I haven't seen any use made of
such a subclassing.
>
>
>
> >However, I do not believe that the intent to permit Auxiliary object
> >classes to subclass Structural object classes is as clear in X.501.
>
> Why? Since X.501 didn't explicitly disallow this, why do
> you think it clear that the intent was to disallow this?
kd: The intent that I am speaking about is the nature of Auxiliary
Object Classes being a means of augmenting other classes and entries with
groups of attributes.
>
>
> Kurt