OASIS Mailing List ArchivesView the OASIS mailing list archive below
or browse/search using MarkMail.

 


Help: OASIS Mailing Lists Help | MarkMail Help

regrep-cc-review message

[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


Subject: RE: [regrep-cc-review] ObjectTypes for CCTS


Joe,

The point is that when you start storing other things in the
registry, all under ExtrinsicObject, and all flat, at the same
level, then it would get messy IMO. Imagine objectsTypes from
CCTS, BPSS, etc, etc, etc, all in the same level... say 1000
objectTypes without hierarchy.. that is a mess - even if you
plan to use other classification mechanisms.

My thoughts..

Diego

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chiusano Joseph [mailto:chiusano_joseph@bah.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, July 01, 2003 4:11 PM
> To: Diego Ballvé
> Cc: Monica J. Martin; Farrukh Najmi; CCRev
> Subject: Re: [regrep-cc-review] ObjectTypes for CCTS
> 
> 
> <Quote>
> Except for that, I don't see any problems for nesting it under
> ExtrinsicObject. In fact, it makes sense because in our 
> approach an ACC
> is an ExtrinsicObject.
> </Quote>
> 
> I think that we should keep this as simple as possible - the 
> less layers
> the better. If we had a "CCTS Object" layer, we would need a "non-CCTS
> Object" layer (or a more explicitly named layer) for the remaining
> ExtrinsicObjects. Later on, we could add a "Business Process" 
> layer for
> ExtrisicObjects relating to the UN/CEFACT Business Process work. It
> could get pretty messy.
> 
> I recommend that: We group ACC, ASCC, BCC, etc. directly under
> ExtrinsicObject with no "CCTS Object" layer in between. If we decide
> that the CCTS objects need further description, we could use the
> multiple-classification feature of the registry to classify 
> these nodes
> according to function (i.e. Core Components, Business Process, etc.).
> 
> Any thoughts?
> 
> Joe
> 
> Diego Ballvé wrote:
> > 
> > > >In a nutshell, Diego has taken all of the CCTS object types
> > > (12 in all)
> > > >and classified them as follows:
> > > >
> > > >Object Type
> > > >     |
> > > >CCTS Objects
> > > > |   |    |
> > > >ACC ASCC BCC etc.
> > > >
> > > >Farrukh and Nikola have proposed:
> > > >
> > > >Object Type
> > > >     |
> > > >RegistryObject
> > > >  |       |
> > > >Registry  Extrinsic
> > > > Entry     Object    etc.
> > > >      |   |    |
> > > >     ACC ASCC BCC etc.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > mm1: Does Diego have any thoughts about any impacts he may
> > > see with this latter approach, given his working experience?
> > 
> > I've made 1 comment in another mail, that I'd like to see
> > CCTS objects grouped under a CCTS node. Except for that, I
> > don't see any problems for nesting it under ExtrinsicObject.
> > In fact, it makes sense because in our approach an ACC is an
> > ExtrinsicObject.
> > 
> > Diego
> 


[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]