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

["Harrison, Andrew" <andy.harrison@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

> > "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:

I don't see the problem. An Object can only be created within the bounds of
the Rules. How could the situation you describe occur? I defined Objects in
terms of ownership in the same way that an Agent is defined by it's ability
to perform actions. It was an attempt at some sort of consistency.

 
> 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.

I don't think there is any need to generalise this far. What is the point of
having everything owned by itself? We only really need to define Objects as
entities that are owned by something else.
 
> > 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.

Great ;-)

> > 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.

What can you use binding contracts for other than Trading in Objects? A
binding contract would have to be defined in the same way as I have defined
Trading - both (or all) Agents have to agree in a public forum. Unless there
is something else it could apply to then there is no need to seperate out
the transfer of Objects.

--
The Kid