[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: CCTS Spec RIM Mappings - [S35] to [S43]
Team, Here is the next set of CCTS requirements for us to cover - please see my comments marked with <JMC>. Please provide feedback on these comments. Thanks, Joe [S35] Business Contexts are a particular category of Registry Classes. As such, all stored Business Contexts shall include the following Attributes: - Unique Identifier - Version - Dictionary Entry Name - Definition - Usage Rule <JMC> We can consider a Business Context to simply be a Classification Schema in the registry - for example, the "Geopolitical Context" classification scheme. No special representation is required in CCRIM. </JMC> [S36] Business Contexts shall contain the combination of values for all approved Context Categories so as to define a unique and meaningful Business Context. <JMC> We can interpret this as "Business Contexts - which are represented in the registry as classification schemes - shall contain the pertinent classification nodes for a particular Context Category". So for example, Geopolitical Context can contain nodes for countries, states/regions within countries,etc. No special representation is required in CCRIM. </JMC> [S38] Stored Classification Schemes shall include the following Attributes: - Context Category - Name - Definition - Primitive Type - Hierarchy <JMC> We can simply use our current classification scheme mechanism as is, with no modifications to it. Regarding the attributes: - Context Category: Would be represented by the Name attribute below; - Name: Would be the classification scheme name - RegistryObject.name; - Definition: Is this necessary? Our ClassificationScheme class does not currently have this attribute, and we've been doing fine so far; - Primitive Type: CCTS describes this as the "Primitive Type that is used for the representation of a Context Value in the Classification Scheme.". Is this necessary? - Hierarchy: CCTS describes this as "Indicator describing whether the Classification Scheme supports a hierarchical description of the Context.". Is this necessary, given that our classification mechanism is hierarchical in nature? </JMC> [S39] Context values shall describe a possible value of a particular Context Category. <JMC> This is represented by the ClassificationNode.code attribute in our current registry architecture. No special representation is required in CCRIM. </JMC> [S40] Stored Context values shall be defined as one of the eight recognized types.Business Process Context value, Product Context value, Industry Context value, Geopolitical Context value, Official Constraints Context value, Business Process Role Context value, Supporting Role Context value or System Capabilities Context value. <JMC> This is handled by the fact that a classification node belongs to a given classification schema that represents one of the "8 recognized types". No special representation is required in CCRIM. </JMC> [S41] Stored Context values may belong to a particular Classification Scheme. <JMC> For us, this is actually "Stored Context values MUST belong to a particular Classification Scheme.". No special representation is required in CCRIM. </JMC> [S42] Stored Context values that belong to a particular Classification Scheme that allows a hierarchy, may have a hierarchical "contains" relation with another Context Value belonging to the same Classification Scheme. <JMC> The CCTS does reference this "contains" relation anywhere else (as far as I could see). But here's an example that I think illustrates this: - We'll focus on the "Geopolitical Context" context category - We have a node for Naples, and one for Italy - We want to signify that "Naples is a province of Italy" What is the best way for us to do this using our existing registry mechanisms? Is there anything prohibiting us from creating a "Contains" Association between the 2 classification nodes? </JMC> [S43] Stored Context value (s) shall include the following Attributes: - Value - Meaning <JMC> The "Value" attribute is represented by the ClassificationNode.code attribute in our current registry architecture. Is the "Meaning" attribute (CCTS describes as "Description of the meaning of the corresponding value.") necessary for us to represent? </JMC>
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]