Re: [regrep-cc-review] ObjectTypes for CCTS

["Chiusano Joseph" <chiusano_joseph@bah.com>]

I definitely see that. Let's think about this a bit more: 

If we did not have the additional layer (which I think most would agree
would make for a simpler hierarchy), and we had a second classification
scheme according to function (for now, "CCTS", and later "Business
Processes"), would it really be a "mess"? Registry users could query the
classification schemes as follows (I'm using pseudocode here):

FOR EACH ExtrinsicObject WHERE Function_Classification="CCTS"

...and still get to the CCTS ExtrinsicObjects. Or a more specific query
for a given BCC:

FOR EACH ExtrinsicObject WHERE
ExtrinsicObject_Classification.ObjectType="BCC"

Does this change your perspective at all?

Is your concern perhaps that there may be performance issues with having
a single level under ExtrinsicObject rather than a "CCTS Object" level
then the CCTS objects under that?

Joe

Diego Ballvé wrote:
> 
> 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
> >
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