Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Usage of "concrete" #362

Open
dontcallmedom opened this issue Apr 9, 2018 · 2 comments
Open

Usage of "concrete" #362

dontcallmedom opened this issue Apr 9, 2018 · 2 comments

Comments

@dontcallmedom
Copy link
Member

I was contacted by someone who was confused by our usage of "concrete sensor" (which can be read as "sensor for/in concrete" as used in the construction business).

This is compounded by language such "An abstract Sensor base class extended by concrete sensors" whereas it is in fact the APIs that are concrete, not the sensors.

The reporter suggests the following alternative language:
"An abstract Sensor base class extended with a profile for a particular sensor type."

@alexshalamov
Copy link

Abstract / concrete class terms are widely used in OOP / computer science domain https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Class_(computer_programming)#Abstract_and_concrete

I would prefer to keep these terms. Maybe definition can be bit more specific, e.g., "An abstract Sensor base class" and "concrete sensor subclass for a particular sensor type". Alternatively, we can substitute concrete with constructible.

@neilmcn
Copy link

neilmcn commented Jun 28, 2018

I was the original someone... so here is my original remark to dontcallmedom...

Well that is a dreadful usage IMHO.

Apart from the issue of concrete == béton, you compound the issue linguistically when you say (e.g.)

An abstract Sensor base class extended by concrete sensors.

It is not the sensors that are 'concrete' but the sensor APIs! If you must use "concrete" then it should be "extended with a concrete API" although that is pretty poor too.

Far better would be to use "profile." Thus "An abstract Sensor base class extended with a profile for a particular sensor type." Then you could have "accelerometer profile of the generic sensor API." This usage has currency in eg ISO/DIS 19115-1 metadata standard.

You may think this kind of thing is trivial. You all understand what you mean by "concrete". In my 20 plus years of reporting on standards I observe that once outside the committee room these things become very important for comprehension, uptake and use. Apart from the nuisance of someone genuinely confused by the (real) possibility of accelerometers designed for use in construction.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

3 participants