What has happened to the annotations that are associated with an attachment? Can you provide a more comprehensive view of the final type definitions you have in mind?
From: <>
On Behalf Of Larry Golding (Comcast)
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:52 PM
To:
Subject: [sarif] RE: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more
I’m sorry, I was so excited about this idea that I was inaccurate.
conversionProvenance is of type
physicalLocation[] (and physicalLocation =
fileLocation +
region), not of type attachment[]. And it’s the
invocation object, not the
run object, that has an attachments property.
But I still think replacing the
attachment object with the file.description property is a good idea!
From: Larry Golding (Comcast) <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:47 PM
To: '' <>
Subject: RE: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more
Importance: High
Also, I would add a new permittted value
analysisToolLogFile in file.roles.
From: Larry Golding (Comcast) <>
Sent: Wednesday, April 25, 2018 1:41 PM
To: '' <>
Subject: I don't think we need an "attachment" object any more
Importance: High
As you know, both run and
result have a property
attachments of type attachment[].
result also has
conversionProvenance of type attachment[]. An
attachment is nothing but a
fileLocation plus a description. The spec says this about
description:
An attachment object
SHOULD contain a property named description whose value is a
message object (§3.9)
describing the role played by the attachment.
The “role”, huh? Be we just added a
roles property to the file object! So perhaps the
file object is also the natural place for
description. Then we don’t need the
attachment object, and instead we have:
file
=role
+description:message
run:
~attachments:fileLocation[]
result:
~attachments:fileLocation[]
~conversionProvenance:fileLocation[]
-attachment
I stumbled on this as I was starting to write the words for
Issue #134, “conversion.analysisToolLogFileLocation should be an array”, which made me look at
result.conversionProvenance and wonder why it was an
attachment[].
If we agree, I’d like to do this in the same change draft as the one I’m writing for #134, since they both touch
result.conversionProvenance.
Thoughts?
Larry
