Re: Classifications - response to Dan Chang comment

[Len Gallagher <LGallagher@nist.gov>]

Dan and other Registry participants,

The only reason that I didn't propose support for ClassificationLevel is 
because it is an upward compatible extension to what I am proposing. My 
intent is to arrive at a stable basis for classifications and 
classification schemes in the RIM so that we can consider such extensions 
by building on an agreed base.

As an aside, a justification for handling ClassificationLevel is that at 
any given moment a classification scheme is a stable hierarchy that 
satisfies the axioms of a tree data structure.  As such, levels are easily 
defined to be the length of the path from the root. Once levels exist, it 
makes sense to allow classification scheme definers to name them, e.g. 
Genus and Species are level names in a biological classification scheme.

-- Len



At 08:06 PM 6/29/01, Dan Chang wrote:

>Len,
>
>I support in general your proposal. This is one area the OASIS spec has
>done a much better job.
>
>One question: What is the reason that you are dropping the support for
>ClassificationLevel, which is in the OASIS spec?
>
>Regards,  Dan
>
>e-business Data Technology and Standard
>IBM Silicon Valley Laboratory
>Notes:     Dan Chang/Santa Teresa/IBM@IBMUS
>Internet:  dtchang@us.ibm.com
>VM:          IBMUSM50(DTCHANG)
>Phone:    (408)-463-2319
>

**************************************************************
Len Gallagher                             LGallagher@nist.gov
NIST                                      Work: 301-975-3251
Bldg 820  Room 562                        Home: 301-424-1928
Gaithersburg, MD 20899-8970 USA           Fax: 301-948-6213
**************************************************************