Re: [regrep-cc-review] Issue #3: P.12 Example in the Registy

[Monica Martin <monica.martin@sun.com>]

Chiusano Joseph wrote:

>Team,
>
>Here is the next issue from the 8/21 Registry TC review. It relates to
>the CCTS spec p.12 example:
>
>In the example, it is assumed that the "Address. Details" ACC is not
>directly joined to the "Person. Details" ACC; rather, there is an
>"intermediary term" ("Residence" or "OfficialAddress") that "linls" the
>2 ACCs together. The CCTS spec calls these Association Core Components
>(ASCCs).
>
>We are not planning to store ASCCs as Core Components as defined in the
>CCTS spec; rather, we are planning to represent them as Associations. 
>Having said that: There are multiple ways to construct this example in
>the registry. Here is the approach we have been referencing in our
>discussions - please review it *carefully* and *pick it apart* step by
>step, word by word. It's critical that we have agreement on this
>approach. I will cite clarifications that we've already had in the
>recent past from the CCTS Team as necessary. 
>
>*** Please note that if there is not sufficient enough feedback on this
>issue by 9/5/03, we will proceed in our Technical Note in the manner
>described below. ***
>
>We will consider "Address. Details" a "base" ACC, from which other ACCs
>(e.g. "ResidenceAddress. Details") as "derived" ACCs. 
>
>Consider the following steps (I've inserted some questions along the
>way):
>
>1. Create BCCs for "Address. Details" ACC (Street, etc.)
>
>2. Create the "Address. Details" ACC - use Associations between each BCC
>and the ACC
>
>3. Create BCCs for "Person. Details" ACC (Name, etc.) 
>
>4. Create the "Person. Details" ACC - use Associations between each BCC
>and the ACC
>
>(Now we create "derived" ACCs from "Address. Details")
>
>5. Create a new BCC called "MailStop" - it will be used for the
>"OfficeAddress. Details" ACC below
>
>6. Create the "OfficeAddress. Details" ACC - use the "Address. Details"
>ACC as a basis, and *extend or restrict it*; use Associations between
>the "OfficeAddress. Details" ACC and the "Address. Details" ACC
>
>QUESTION: Do we need 2 new Association Types here - "ExtendedFrom" and
>"RestrictedFrom"? Or just simply one Association Type named
>"DerivedFrom?" If so, should we handle this the same as W3C Schema? That
>is, an extension would contain only the additional BCCs, and a
>restriction would contain the BCCs from the "base" ACC that are being
>carried over.
>  
>
mm1: I would prefer Association type.

>QUESTION: Should the Association be between "OfficeAddress. Details"
>and "Address. Details" only? Or, should there also be an Association
>between "OfficeAddress. Details" and "Person. Details", so that an
>"assembler" does not have to route through "Address. Details" to
>assemble together "Person. Details" and "OfficeAddress. Details"?
>
>Now, suppose that a change takes place to the "Address. Details" ACC - a
>BCC's name is changed. If an implementation allows, that change can
>propagate to all derived ACCs.
>  
>
mm1: Joe, as I was in an offsite on Thursday.  Did the team agree to 
OfficeAddress. Details as an ACC?
Thanks.

>That's all...
>
>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
>