[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] [ADDITIONAL THOUGHT]Re: [regrep-cc-review] ASCCs/ASBIEs Revisited
Please see comments below marked <JMC>. Diego Ballvé wrote: > > Joe, > > > Regarding CCTS spec p.12, example: Another way to view the "Address. > > Details" ACC is as an abstract class which cannot be instantiated, but > > which can be used to derive sub-classes. More specifically, "Address. > > Details" would never appear in an XML document, but "Person. Residence. > > Address" (for which "Residence" can be considered a sub-class derived > > from "Address. Details") would appear. > > Nice way to see it. I agree with all but the fact that an ACC cannot be > instantiated at all. If you assemble a form, the form itself can be > viewed as an ACC, composed by ASCCs and BCCs. <JMC> Both our perspectives here are superceded by Mark Crawford's clarification earlier today: "CCs (BCC, ACC, ASCC) will NEVER be used to create an instance document. Only BIEs." </JMC> > > > So we could potentially have many ASCCs in a registry derived from the > > "Address. Details" ACC. > > Definitely. > > > It appears that the transition from ACC to ABIE occurs when business > > context is added, and that business context is one of the 8 predefined > > context categories (Business Process, Product Classification, etc.). > > > > It appears that the transition from ACC to ASCC occurs when business > > context is added, but that business context is NOT one of the 8 > > predefined context categories. The same holds true for the transition > > from ABIE to ASBIE - except that an ASBIE already incorporates one of > > the 8 predefined context categories (by virtue of the fact that we are > > starting with an ABIE). > > Agree on both. > > > I think we can represent ASCCs (created from ACCs) and ASBIEs (created > > from ABIEs) with registry associations, > > I was voting for this approach but I have some doubts now. > - First, Association is a RegistryObject but not a RegistryEntry. So you > loose status and version control capabilities from RIM. <JMC> True - but I'm not sure what that is undesirable - i.e. why an Association should be that "heavyweight". Taking the RegistryEntry attributes one-by-one, and considering them in light of Associations: expiration: - Is there value in having an expirationDate for an Association? majorVersion: - Is there value in having multiple versions of an Association? To me, it seems that either an Association exists, or it doesn't. minorVersion: - See "majorVersion" stability: - Relates to content; do Associations really have "content"? userVersion - See "majorVersion" </JMC> > - Second, since you don't have an ExtrinsicObject you can't set your own > objectType attribute (ASCC/ASBIE in this case, although you can set > associationType). <JMC> I think your last point regarding associationType is 100% correct - we could have an associationType of (for example) "Derives From". </JMC> > - Third, in the attached document you've made the following note: > "*Note that the relationship between the "Person. Details" ACC and the > "Residence" ASCC can also be represented with a registry association. > So there are really 2 associations here." > > How are you seeing this 2 Associations??? Like this? > Person. Details ACC (Contains) Residence ASCC (Extends) Address. Details <JMC> Exactly. I should have stated that in the document - will update. </JMC> > But since an Association needs a source and a target, Residence ASCC > must be a RegistryObject. would we have an Association as source/target > of another?? <JMC> Exactly. Residence ASCC would be a RegistryObject, with an Association to the "Address. Details" ACC, and another Association to the "Person. Details" ACC (I'm not being specific about the Association direction here - just talking high-level). If we feel the registry is becoming "heavy" with all these RegistryObjects, there is an alternative for the Residence ASCC - for example, it could be represented with a Slot on the "Address. Details" ACC RegistryObject. However, this approach hits a brick wall when we have to "join" the Residence ACC (represented as a Slot on the "Address. Details" ACC RegistryObject) to the "Person. Details" ACC. With multiple Slots on the "Address. Details" ACC - each representing an ASCC - how would we indicate which Slot is participating in the Association? So there may be no better way than representing these ACCs and ASCC as RegistryObjects. </JMC> > > > while the transition from ACCs > > to ABIEs can be represented by classifications (per the 8 context > > categories). The path from ACC to ASBIE will therefore use both > > associations and classifications - the order of which depends on whether > > the path was: > > > > ACC --> ABIE (classification) --> ASBIE (association) > > > > OR > > > > ACC --> ASCC (association) --> ASBIE (classification) > > Classification can (only) be made based on a ClassificationScheme. > I see it so that if you have 8 predefined context categories, then you > have 8 ClassificationSchemes (containing all the posible classification > nodes!). <JMC> Yes. </JMC> Having all that, you can classify the BIEs (RegistryObjects). <JMC> Yes. </JMC> > But you still need 2 RegistryObjects (1 CC and 1 BIE) and 1 Association > between them. > > Said that, I didn't get the point for the 2 paths. <JMC> What, you mean you can't read my mind? ;) I should have been clearer: I believe there are 4 possible "transitions" involving ACCs, ASCCs, ABIEs, and ASBIEs: (1) ACC --> ABIE (2) ABIE --> ASBIE (3) ACC --> ASCC (4) ASCC --> ASBIE That is, a Registry user should be able to "convert" an ACC to an ABIE (case #1), an ABIE to an ASBIE (case #2), etc. I obtained this list by considering all 12 possibilities (assuming X --> X was not valid - such as ACC --> ACC), and negating the ones that did not make sense. For example, the following did not make sense: ASCC --> ABIE ASBIE --> ACC etc. Having said that, the path from an ACC (the most generic entity) to an ASBIE (the least generic entity) could be gotten two ways: Join (1) and (2): ACC --> ABIE --> ASBIE Join (3) and (4): ACC --> ASCC --> ASBIE Lastly, we can use classification and association as follows: ACC --> ABIE (classification) --> ASBIE (association) ACC --> ASCC (association) --> ASBIE (classification) Please let me know if you think this makes sense. </JMC> > Diego > > 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
begin:vcard n:Chiusano;Joseph tel;work:(703) 902-6923 x-mozilla-html:FALSE url:www.bah.com org:Booz | Allen | Hamilton;IT Digital Strategies Team adr:;;8283 Greensboro Drive;McLean;VA;22012; version:2.1 email;internet:chiusano_joseph@bah.com title:Senior Consultant fn:Joseph M. Chiusano end:vcard
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]