In contrast to issue #30, this story is about booking in the renaming of an item as an event occurring at a point in time - so any other previous history is unaffected, and any subsequent events using the old form of the item's id would then refer to a different, distinct item. So in addition to 'Change', 'Measurement' and 'Annihilation', there would be a 'Renaming'.
This begs the question - should subsequent events really be disconnected from the renamed item's history? Well, it depends - it might be the case that we want to record the changing of an item's name halfway through its history as an event, but apply this as a correction to subsequent events too. Let's split this into two things - a new event that is a change in id for an item, that occurs at a definite point in time in its own right, and the correction of existing events following on from that point in time that referred to the item via its old id - in effect, a variation on issue #30, only with a lower time-bound.
This suggests that issue #30 be generalised to accept a lower time-bound - let's go and add to that issue as well. For now, we'll concentrate on a point-in-time renaming event for this story.
In contrast to issue #30, this story is about booking in the renaming of an item as an event occurring at a point in time - so any other previous history is unaffected, and any subsequent events using the old form of the item's id would then refer to a different, distinct item. So in addition to 'Change', 'Measurement' and 'Annihilation', there would be a 'Renaming'.
This begs the question - should subsequent events really be disconnected from the renamed item's history? Well, it depends - it might be the case that we want to record the changing of an item's name halfway through its history as an event, but apply this as a correction to subsequent events too. Let's split this into two things - a new event that is a change in id for an item, that occurs at a definite point in time in its own right, and the correction of existing events following on from that point in time that referred to the item via its old id - in effect, a variation on issue #30, only with a lower time-bound.
This suggests that issue #30 be generalised to accept a lower time-bound - let's go and add to that issue as well. For now, we'll concentrate on a point-in-time renaming event for this story.