[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] CCTS Spec RIM Mappings (7.1.1-7.1.2)
Comments below, prefixed by [Diego]. Diego > p.75: > > 7.1.1 Stored Core Components > > [S1] > - Unique Identifier > > [JMC] Defer to existing RIM spec: UUID assigned to RegistryObject. No > updates necessary for CC. > > - Version > > [JMC] Defer to existing RIM spec: "MajorVersion" and "MinorVersion" > RegistryEntry attributes. No updates necessary for CC. > > - Dictionary Entry Name (already covered: RegistryObject.name) > - Definition (already covered: RegistryObject.description) > > - Usage Rule: See p.65 Section 6.2.4 > > [JMC] Out of our scope, as it references Section 6 (we are verifying > Section 7). Sidenote: Section 6 will most likely be covered by OASIS > CAM. > > p.76: > > [S2] > Stored Core Components shall always be defined as one of the 4 > recognized types: Basic Core Component (p.77 Section 7.1.6), > Association > Core Component (p.77 Section 7.1.7), Aggregate Core Component (p.76 > Section 7.1.2), or Core Component Type (p.77 Section 7.1.8) > > [JMC] Use "ObjectType" RegistryObject attribute. Augment existing list > of Pre-defined object types. More details to be discussed at a later > point. > > [JMC] Association Core Component probably not needed - will represent > this functionality using the existing registry Association mechanism. > > [S3] > - Business Term > > [JMC] Use Slot mechanism (i.e. not mappable to existing RIM). [Diego] +1 with Joe's statements for [S1-S3] > 7.1.2 Stored Aggregate Core Components > > [S4] > Aggregate Core Components are a particular category of Core > Components. > As such, stored Aggregate Core Components shall include all Attributes > of Stored Core Components. > > [JMC] Should we consider introducing some type of inheritance > mechanism > in the registry, perhaps by introducing an "InheritsFrom" association > and specifying that any updates made to a RegistryObject that is the > source of this association must propagate to the target > RegistryObject? [Diego] I don't get it. Why would you need it here? You are not storing a CoreComponent and an AggregateCoreComponent, just 1 ACC. So no need for inheritance here. Correct? Although, "InheritsFrom" might be useful when connecting CC-BIE. We'll get there... > [S5] > Stored Aggregate Core Components shall contain one or more Core > Component Properties (p.76 Section 7.1.3) > > [JMC] Covered by comment for [S4] above. [Diego] Disagree. Same reason. As I see it, [S5] is saying that 1 ACC "Contains" references to 1..* CCs. And since Associations also have Slots, it can accommoddate i.e. cardinality and property term. > [S6] > Stored Aggregate Core Components can be referenced by one or more > Association Core Component Properties (p.77 Section 7.1.5) of other > Aggregate Core Components (p.76 Section 7.1.2) > > [JMC] (repeat of earlier comment) Association Core Component probably > not needed - will represent this functionality using the existing > registry Association mechanism. [Diego] +1. I'd like to hear (from Mark?) the CCTS goal with ASCC, why not to say that Aggregates can contain aggregates? Is ASCC just a way to represent "ACCRef", or reference to an ACC? Or are we missing something? > [S7] > Stored Aggregate Core Components shall include an "Object Class Term" > attribute > > [JMC] Note that this does not include the other 2 main Data Element > Terms from 11179 - Property Term and Representation Term. Is this > intended, or an error in the spec? According to the p.12 example, > "Person. Details" is an Aggregate Core Component, and it contains only > an Object Class Term of "Person" ("Details" would not be considered a > Representation Term). So [S7] is consistent with the p.12 example. > > [JMC] However, this leads to another question: What if one needed to > represent "Person" information in 2 different ACC's - for example, one > being "PersonEmploymentDetails", the other being > "PersonMedicalDetails". > According to [S7], this would not be possible. Or, are > "PersonEmploymentDetails" and "PersonMedicalDetails" not considered to > be ACC's? [Diego] Is it a matter of how you see? From a different point of view, you can have 2 ACCs, "EmployeeDetails" and "PacientDetails", both containing "PersonDetails" ACC. Doesn't solve your problem but presents a work-around. Somebody should still answer Joe's question.