[Smtk-developers] New Feature for Attribute Definitions - inheritable association rules

[David Thompson]

> ...
> For Example assume a base definition foo can be applied to edges and faces
> A definition bar is derived from foo and is going to have a local association rule
> 
> Which of the following are allowed?
> 
> 1. bar can be associated with just faces (its rule is a subset of foo’s rule)
> 2. bar can be associated with edges, faces, and volumes (its rule is a superset)
> 3. bar can be associated with volumes (its rule is independent)
> 
> The question boils down to if bar can be treated as a foo then should it be associated to at least all  things foo? - then the we do superset
> or is it a specialization of foo - in that case its a subset
> 
> I think case 3 (independent) is probably not allowed?

I can think of a use case you may not like, but which I can imagine a user attempting:

Imagine a solver that can handle both 2D and 3D simulations.
User A has develops an attribute system for 2D simulations using the solver and contributes it to the community.
Now user B takes user A's system and wants to inherit its definitions but change the model associations so it will work with 3D systems.
That is case 3 (independent rules) because boundary conditions and materials need to be different dimensions in the 3D case.

	David