[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Re: ACC or ABIE? (Was Re: [regrep-cc-review] Association Core
I agree with this approach .. it is a building block for business semantics > Again, in my POV if you have a CC and need a BIE for it you follow these > steps (talking RIM): > 1. Create a NEW ExtrinsicObject of type xBIE > > <JMC> > Yes. > </JMC> > > 2. Associate it to you original CC > > <JMC> > Yes. > </JMC> > > 3. Optionally classify it for as many contexts as you want. > > <JMC> > Yes. > </JMC> > > 4. Optionally add QualifierTerm slot. > > <JMC> > That is where I think we need to adjust - if both #3 and #4 are > optional, you're still left with a Core Component (i.e. no business > context, no Qualifier Term). I believe that #4 should be a requirement - > the minimum requirement for an xBIE. > </JMC> > > (5. Optionally further restrict datatypes.) > > <JMC> > Yes. > </JMC> > > > It does not invalidate your proposed process since it is in a > > different abstraction layer. But maybe in my view you'd end up > > with a lot more ExtrinsicObjects than you're expecting. > > <JMC> > Since we're in sync regarding the creation of ExtrinsicObjects, I think > there's no issue here. > </JMC> > > Are we 'synchronized' about this?? > > <JMC> > 99% - see step #4 above. > </JMC> carl Carl Mattocks CEO CHECKMi e-mail: CarlMattocks@checkmi.com ******************************************* Business Agent Software that Secures Knowledge for Reputation:Protection ******************************************* CHECKMi Compendium the shortcut to Valued & Trusted Knowledge ******************************************* www.checkmi.com (usa)1-908-322-8715 CarlCheckMi (I M)
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]