[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: No Subject
[S8] Stored Core Component Properties shall be stored as part of the stored Aggregate Core Component to which they belong, i.e. they shall never exist independently of their owning Aggregate Core Component. <JMC2> Thanks - but since we're not representing Core Component Properties as entities, I believe this would be a moot point. This would follow for the rest of your comments below, up to and including "Same can be seen graphically..." (so sorry!). </JMC2> [S12] Stored Basic Core Component Properties shall be linked to the Data Type that describes the possible values of the Basic Core Component Property. [S16] Stored Basic Core Components shall represent a Basic Core Component Property of a particular Aggregate Core Component. --> a BCC has an 1 to 1 relation to a BasicCCProperty which is part of 1 and only 1 ACC. Same can be seen graphically in well-known Figure 7-1, page 75. Being open-minded now, maybe this restriction is not the best thing. For instance, if I want to reuse a BCC currently I have to pack it inside an ACC and reuse the ACC. Extra work, extra logic, extra space. <JMC2> Yes - I completely agree! </JMC2> It would also create new problems. Where would the BCC name came from? By itself BCC does not have an Object Class Term, nor a Property Term. Maybe a basic type.. <JMC2> BCCs have a Property Term - we've moved Property Term from Core Component Properties (p.77 top) to BCCs. So for example, a BCC may be named "TelephoneNumber" where "Telephone" is the Property Term. </JMC2> Besides, we can say that we support reusing BCCs in the registry (if we specify it) but CCTS doesn't take advantage of this feature unless it gets changed. <JMC2> I agree - and I think it's highly important for us to support this. So for example, the BCC of "TelephoneNumber" should be able to appear in multiple ACCs, because it is - by nature - so "highly reusable". </JMC2> > > > > > > > > > >, and have a different Cardinality in each > > > > occurrence (i.e. why restrict it to the same maximum > > occurrences for > > > > every scenario?) > > > > > > > > In light of that, I wonder if it would be best to specify the > > > > Cardinality along with the Association between the ACC > > and the BCC, > > > > rather than on the BCC itself. > > --------------B6A33896F2F74DB36891375F Content-Type: text/x-vcard; charset=us-ascii; name="Chiusano_Joseph.vcf" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Description: Card for Joseph Chiusano Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="Chiusano_Joseph.vcf" 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 --------------B6A33896F2F74DB36891375F--
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]