[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] Bringing It Home: BIEs, ASCCs, and BusinessContext
Chiusano Joseph wrote: >Team, > >Thinking about the example on p.12 of the CCTS, and how we see ASCCs >created through the "Residence" and "Official" links: > >The CCTS spec does not explicitly acknowledge that one can have in a >registry an entity named "ResidenceAddress. Details" or >"OfficialAddress. Details" - > On the issue of modeling ResidenceAddress Vs. OfficialAddress.... From a pure UML modeling stand point (always a good reference point for me), I believe that the model should define exactly 1 type (Class) called "PostalAddress". Then other types (such as Person or Organization) may have separate attributes as follows: Class Person { ... PostalAddress residenceAddress; PostalAddress officialAddress; } I belive it will be wrong to model it as follows: Class Person { ... ResidenceAddress residenceAddress; OfficialAddress officialAddress; } The only way I see the second form to make sense is if there are differences in the attributes of a OfficialAddress and a ResidenceAddress. In that case I could see a base PostalAddress class be used by two derived OfficialAddress and a ResidenceAddress classes and the second form for class Person. -- Farrukh >rather, it descibes the ASCCs that are >created with these "links" in between. I am not saying that this was an >omission in the CCTS spec, but I believe that from a registry standpoint >the reality is that there is a great advantage to being able to >register/derive and maintain entities named "ResidenceAddress. Details" >and "OfficialAddress. Details" - so that they may be used in multiple >ACCs. > >I propose then that: > >(1) We consider "ResidenceAddress. Details" amd "OfficialAddress. >Details" to be ABIEs, even though they are not (to my knowledge) >associated with one of the 8 context categories > >(2) We represent ASCCs as associations between these ABIEs and the ACC >(per the p.12 example) in which they are contained > >So #1 means that a registry user can create an ABIE from an ACC *with >classifying the ACC according to one the 8 context categories* - that >is, by simply providing an Object Class Qualifier in the ABIE >("Residence" or "Official"), in this case. > >It would be very inefficient (I believe) to require a user to reference >a classification scheme every time they create an ABIE from an ACC - in >the p.12 example, they would have to create a classification scheme with >only 2 nodes ("Residence" or "Official") and then classify the ABIE. >Much more complicated than it needs to be - the user should simply be >able to add the Object Class Qualifier. > >The same concepts would apply for the BCC->BBIE transition - consider a >case of "OfficeTelephoneNumber" (may include an extension) vs. >"HomeTelephoneNumber" (would not include extension). > >Please provide thoughts on this. > >Thanks, >Joe > >You may leave a Technical Committee at any time by visiting http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/regrep-cc-review/members/leave_workgroup.php >
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]