HAL 0.1 release

[Bryan W. Headley]

Marc Boris Dürner wrote:
>>>I am 
>>> not against  
>>>listing capabilities at all.   
> 
>  
> 
>>My point with capabilities is that categories/subcategories aren't 
>>necessary at all.  Are you interested in dealing with the properties of 
>>a Network device or a Modem? 

Ah! That's the example that started the conversation.

(Looking over at my SOHO toy, I see a router/network hub/name 
server/firewall/DSL Modem, which could have had a USB or parallel 
printer port if I bought the costlier model)

Is it a network device insofar as it's all in one plastic box? If so, 
then I'm interested in its properties. If I consider that it's primary 
capacity is that of a network device, then its sub-capacities are 
router, network hub, name server, firewall and DSL modem...

Along those lines, I'm pretending to be looking at a 3com 3c509 network 
card: is it a Network Device with sub-capacity Ethernet adaptor?

On the other hand, is a Network Device an endpoint, with a list of 
properties (bus/topography, address)? And then there is an array of 
Capacities (modem, router, etc.) that seem to share their properties 
with one another, especially regards to their topography/address?

But that's a SOHO DSL/Router. I assume you were talking about a 56K 
modem as a network-shareable device (but it shows the same issue of 
Capacity enumeration)

I've seen several departmental photocopiers which are also network 
printers. Some are also scanners, although fortunately they send their 
data to the user as email attachments.

Now we're getting fun. The announcement of Capacity availability is not

-- 
____               .:.                 ____
Bryan W. Headley - bwheadley at earthlink.net