spoon-discuss: Re: It's my Object and I'll cry if I want to

[Dan Waldron <wald7330@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

My comments are interspersed between sections.

On Wed, 22 Nov 2000, Harrison, Andrew wrote:

> I submit the following proposal entitled "It's my Object and I'll cry if I
> want to":
> 
> Create a Rule entitled 'Object Orientation' with the following text:
> "An Object is an entity that is owned by an Agent. Agents may gain ownership
> or lose ownership of Objects only in he manner defined in the Ruleset.
> Agents may only own a positive integral number of a specific type of Object,
> unless it is otherwise specified elsewhere in the Ruleset."
> 

I don't like the idea of defining an object only by its ownership.  Then
we could get entity types of which some members are objects and others are
not.  I think this could be done in a better way by something like the
following:

All entities are owned.  Unless otherwise specified in the rules, the
owner of an entity is unchangeable, and always itself.  Entities of types
which are regulated by the rules may only be created, destroyed, or
otherwise modified as specified by the rules.

Objects are entites of which the ownership may change, but only as
described in the rules. An object may be owned only by itself or by an
agent.  Unless specified in the rules, the initial owner of an object is
itself.


> Create a Rule entitled 'The Officer of Bean Counting' with the following
> text:
> "The Officer of Bean Counting (OBC) is an Elected Officer. The OBC is
> responsible for keeping track of the number of each Object currently owned
> by each Agent."
>

I think that it is a good idea to specify how we keep track of objects.
This rule gets two thumbs up.
 
> Create a Rule entitled 'Trade Descriptions Act' with the following text:
> "An Agent may Trade a number of Objects with another Agent by posting the
> details of their Trade to a public forum. All Agents involved in the Trade
> must publicly agree to the Trade. The OBC shall within reasonable time
> recognise the result of the Trade."

I would still rather have non-restricted transfer plus binding contracts
than try to amalgamate them into one.  I think that the former way is more
versatile.


Poulenc.