<div>2007/6/10, Evgeny Egorochkin <<a href="mailto:phreedom.stdin@gmail.com">phreedom.stdin@gmail.com</a>>:<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> > > We need to agree on a consistent Source naming. > > Source-Source Item examples: > > Filesystem      -File > > Archive         -ArchiveItem > > Email           -Attachment > > > > It seems resonable to adopt either: > > * this is contained in a [Filesystem,Archive,Email] > > * this is a [file, archiveitem, attachment] > > > > But not the both at the same time. > > Right. This is tricky. I  really think the "this comes from"-metaphor is > the closes to the intention. The "this is a"-metaphor is already what > categories imply. > > Because of this I also think that Mailbox is a better  source name than > Email. Here Email corresponds to Attachment. That is we are dealing with an Attachment that is contained in a Email. > The Attachment is more subtle because in some way it does make sense > to say that "holiday1.jpg comes from an attachment", I can easily imagine > several arguments against this metaphor but it is really not a clear cut > case. How about File vs FileSystem?</blockquote><div> I think I better clarify what I mean.  Here's a list of sources:  - Filesystem : The object data is stored on the fs  - Archive : The object data is contained in an archive  - Mailbox : The object data has been extracted from a mailbox  - Attachment : The data of this object is stored as an email attachment </div> The metaphor is "the content of this object is stored in". Cheers, Mikkel </div>